Strategic Defence Review

HL Deb 08 December 1998 vol 595 cc845-97

5.19 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, I am not so concerned about the content of the strategic review—although I understand that it is capable of being criticised, and has been criticised—because my noble friend in his usual efficient manner introduced it in a convincing way. Unfortunately the most important aspect of the whole defence world at this time receives no treatment at all in the document. I refer, of course, to the manifesto undertaking of my party that we shall seek the elimination of the nuclear weapon.

It is remarkable that a document of this kind should make no mention at all of the subject which divides the world at the moment. In effect we are divided between the nuclear powers and those who have an immediate ambition to follow in their track, and the vast majority who have no nuclear weapons. When the issue was discussed recently at the United Nations General Assembly, my Government joined in the opposition to their manifesto recommendation, rather than supporting it. Some 97 countries wanted to get rid of the nuclear weapon, but did our representative support them? Not a bit of it. Britain voted with the United States which does not wish to get rid of the nuclear weapon and has never pretended that it wishes to do so. However, I should say in parenthesis that there are many Americans who hold the same views on this subject as I do. However, they have not yet succeeded in persuading any United States government or potential government to change their mind on the matter. For some time America has been concerned with matters other than the nuclear weapon.

We have recognised the importance of the nuclear weapon and the need to get rid of it. However, in the United Nations we voted against the commitment that was stated in the manifesto. We have issued a prolix document in the name of a senior civil servant; no Minister put his name to this explanation of why we decided to take this extraordinary decision. The document is more wordy than convincing. But there it is. Apparently there is now no effective government intention in sight to work hard and speedily—as the non-proliferation treaty provides—and with conviction to get rid of the nuclear weapon.

That is a sad state of affairs, particularly for someone like myself who served in the Royal Air Force during the war in SEAC (South-East Asia Command). The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, but after the initial rejoicing was over some considerable concern was felt about this remarkable new weapon which had killed thousands of people in a moment. I shared that concern and I have shared it ever since. In the immediate years after that event I forgot about it, but in the 1950s a Labour government decided to make the hydrogen bomb, a bomb one hundred times more deadly than the one which had extinguished people in Hiroshima. At that point I became convinced that the world now had the power to destroy our entire civilisation. Nothing in man's past record on such matters has convinced me that this power will not be used.

For the past 17 years, ever since I have been in this House, I have from time to time stretched your Lordships' toleration when I have pointed out the danger that these weapons pose to us. I would not expect your Lordships to take any particular notice of what I say if I, alone, held these views, but I am not alone. One of the extraordinary features to emerge in the past few years is the conviction felt among what one might call the world's top brass that this is a weapon which cannot be used as a weapon of war without risk of incurring such destruction as might threaten civilisation itself.

Last year, for example, 60 admirals and generals gathered in Washington and declared themselves in favour of nuclear disarmament. Two most distinguished ex-chiefs of staff who sit in this House are convinced that the nuclear weapon must be eliminated. The Pope's representative has spoken more vehemently than I have with regard to why the nuclear weapon must go. The Pope's representative believes that humanity itself is threatened by the continued existence of the nuclear weapon. I believe that it will destroy our civilisation, but who knows whether we are talking about the destruction of our civilisation, or the destruction of humanity itself, or, indeed, of all life on earth? That is the kind of detail with which I do not wish to bother. However, if our civilisation is destroyed, all that we stand for will go with it. I do not know whether after that there will be any life on earth, or whether in 20, 30, 40 years or more there will be any more life on this earth than there is on the moon. However, I believe that the period of time during which we can carry on without a nuclear holocaust is pretty limited. My own guess, for what it is worth, is that probably the first century of the coming millennium will see the end of our civilisation, unless we change our course.

I thought that my party had decided to change its course when it stated in its manifesto that it would pursue the elimination of the nuclear weapon. However, the document that we are discussing tonight on our strategic defence policy contains no effective undertaking in that regard. I should have thought that a substantial part of the document should contain the detail of how we bring about the elimination of the nuclear weapon, but not on your life! Instead of that, we vote against ourselves in the United Nations.

I shall not leave this subject alone; your Lordships have not heard the last from me. However, I do not wish to take up too much of the time that is available in this debate. Although this matter ought to be included in the document, it is not. Later in the debate, we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Carver, who can speak with considerable authority on this subject.

I hope that we shall begin to deal with this matter more seriously than we have done hitherto. There are two opinions on it. There are the opinions held in the non-nuclear world, which is wholly against nuclear weapons; and there are the opinions held in the nuclear world—opinions which are not widely held among the population. According to opinion polls the vast majority of people are in favour of the elimination policy which we declare ourselves to be in favour of but do not carry out. If that is the case, we have a duty to listen to what people are saying, particularly in those countries that do not have nuclear weapons, and to busy ourselves carrying out the policy on which we went to the country and won a magnificent victory.

I hope that we may be able to do something to heal the breach that exists between those with nuclear weapons and those without. That breach can be healed only by our joining the "withouts", not by the "withouts" joining us. That way lies perdition.

5.31 p.m.

The Earl of Carlisle

My Lords, it is a pleasure to salute and congratulate from these Benches the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent of Coleshill, on his admirable maiden speech. It was wise, thought-provoking and shrewd. The noble Lord also issued a caution to the Front Bench. If anyone is unwise enough to doubt the need for distinguished servicemen in this House who have advised Ministers at the highest level, the noble Lord's maiden speech must have deterred them from that view. I hope that, next year, when we discuss the reform of this Chamber we shall ensure that there will always be five star officers to give us their breadth of experience in planning and executing dangerous operations of war. I am sorry that there are no naval or Royal Air Force five star officers present to give us their views on the Strategic Defence Review. Perhaps we need more of those two categories in this House. I should welcome that.

It is a daunting experience to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and before the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge. The former is a well-known and much respected campaigner for nuclear disarmament; the latter has to my knowledge never been a nuclear disarmer. Likewise, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has never been Chief of the Defence Staff. I have been neither a campaigner for nuclear disarmament nor a defence chief. I had the privilege as a field officer to command sub-units in the Regular Army, an armoured car reconnaissance regiment and a TA infantry company. It is from that level that I make my small contribution. It will not be like cru champagne like that of the noble and gallant Lord; it will be something like Babycham—with no insult to Babycham!

We have been told that the Strategic Defence Review is bipartisan. I suggest that it is tripartisan. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will speak as an independent from the Cross-Benches. I believe that our servicemen welcome politicians in both Houses agreeing on the broad principles of defence policy, because that gives them confidence. Woe betide us when we get into a situation like Suez, when there were arguments between the Front Benches in both Houses as to the efficacy of the operation while our servicemen were about to launch the "boat" from the blue. We welcome the Strategic Defence Review. It has been a long time coming, but it was worth waiting for. I hope that the services now have time to settle down.

I have a question for the Minister which he will not be able to answer, because the answer will not be known. Events over the years will provide the answer. Is this strategic defence approach sustainable? We welcome assurances about the great warships and aircraft carriers that are to be built. I am slightly more concerned that our amphibious landing ships will not be built soon enough. We await HMS "Bulwark" and HMS "Albion". We say that we are returning to last century, and the "boat" from the blue; we land our sailors, soldiers and airmen in order to carry out ground operations. But they need a "sea taxi", an amphibious landing ship to get them there. I understand that there will be a gap between building the new ones and the decommissioning of the old ones. How will the Government bridge that gap—beg, borrow or steal, or make do with something? Will it be a case of "débrouiller", a case of muddling through? Will it be improvisation? I am reminded by Professor Michael Howard, the distinguished professor of war studies both at London and at Oxford, who said during his Cheney lecture when considering a previous defence review, "I do not believe that Her Majesty's Government have got it exactly right. However, I can expect from this defence review that they have the ability to put it right, time, God willing, permitting". I hope that we can also say that about this defence review.

I wish to make three points. First, we are talking about defence diplomacy publicly in a Strategic Defence Review for the first time. I note the Outreach programme and welcome its expansion, including the greater use of attachments and short-term training teams and additional training courses particularly for those in central Europe. I refer to the land from the River Weser to the River Narva. A Lithuanian parliamentary delegation, under the deputy Speaker, Mr. Andrius Kubilius, is presently meeting officials from the Minister's department. They are discussing the enlargement of NATO. I hope that this distinguished group of Lithuanian members of parliament go away satisfied with what they learn from the Minister's officials. I suspect that they will be told that it will probably not be this year and that next year is unlikely. However, I hope that they will not be told that it will never happen, but that it will indeed happen at some time.

Will the Minister tell the House whether, following the Strategic Defence Review, we are to enhance our commitment to assist those nations that are recreating their defence forces on our own model?

I turn, secondly, to the Territorial Army. I experienced the undoubted sadness to be the sexton of a TA infantry company based at Hebburn on the Tyne. I was a sexton when it was wound up some eight years ago. Everyone in that 80-strong company found another home in another drill hall. The TA has now been cut again. Can the Minister give us some assurance, not that everyone who wishes to serve in the TA or whose commanding officers wish them to continue to serve in the TA will be found a home, but that his department will do all in its power to keep the junior and senior NCOs and the junior officers who have been expensively trained by the taxpayer and who still have a contribution to make?

Thirdly, we learn that we are short of 10,000 servicemen in the three services. The Minister was present in the Jubilee Room of the Westminster Hall on 25th November when members of your Lordships' defence group and members of the all-party defence group in the House of Commons listened to a presentation by Colonel Jackson, formerly of the Royal Green Jackets. Present to answer our questions were the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Chief of the General Staff, Sir Roger Wheeler. We saw an excellent film on that occasion. I believe that that film should be shown to a wider public, as should a naval one and a Royal Air Force one. Can the Minister assure us that we are using the media to present our defence forces in as good a light as possible? I suggest that there is no better way to present the defence forces than to get the soldier, the sailor and the airman to do it themselves.

5.41 p.m.

Lord Inge

My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble and gallant friend Lord Vincent on his maiden speech. I too congratulate the Government on the outcome of the strategic defence review. Ministers and the services were involved as a team from the outset and there was wide consultation. I know that the services feel that, within the constraints of the defence budget, it was a well-thought-out and successful review. In saying that, I include the Territorial Army, about which I shall say a little more in a moment.

I should like to highlight certain key points in the review that I think are important: the emphasis placed on the critical importance of NATO and this country's contribution as the lead nation within the allied rapid reaction corps; the commitment to, and the need to retain, a high intensity warfare capability—in other words, a true war-fighting capability; and the importance of improving our capability to project military power, which we need to be careful not to overstate. I was delighted by the attention given to sustainability, about which I should like to say a little more later. I was also delighted to see that real efforts will be made to try to reduce overstretch, but I have doubts about whether that is achievable.

I should like to say something about the Territorial Army. I understand the highly charged and emotional reaction that greeted the significant cuts to the Territorial Army. During the Cold War I was fortunate enough to command a division which had within it a significant number of Territorial Army units and individual reservists. Without their contribution, the Second Infantry Division could not have gone to war.

I think we need to recognise two significant facts. First, there have been major changes, which are well known, to the international security situation. Secondly, the Government made it clear that there was no additional money available for defence—wrong, maybe, but a fact. Given those two factors, significant changes to the Territorial Army were necessary to allow the TA to play a real part in meeting effectively the operational demands likely to be placed upon it in the new security situation. In all of this I recognise the significant contribution made by many individual TA soldiers in places such as Bosnia, Northern Ireland and elsewhere. However, the Territorial Army's ability to provide formed units at short notice is, for understandable reasons, less good, as the experience when we tried to fit them into the tour plot for the Falkland Islands illustrated. I hope that the Government will provide them with the kind of training days that they require and the training support and permanent staff that they need to allow them to take on these difficult and challenging roles.

Even something as successful as the strategic defence review raises certain doubts and questions which will in the end decide whether this was a successful defence review. Perhaps I may touch on a few. As the Minister mentioned, we shall know whether it was a successful review when it is tested in an operational situation. We need to recognise, first, that Britain's Armed Forces are of the highest quality but that they are now very small and have limited scope to undertake independent military action. Secondly, the defence budget is, in Sir Humphrey's famous words, "seriously over-heated" and there must be doubt as to whether the full SDR package can be delivered. Significant savings may have to be made in the forward equipment programme. On top of this, there are the so-called 3 per cent. efficiency savings demanded by the Chancellor, which may well affect operational capability in such areas as training, overstretch and quality of life. This must have a knock-on effect on standards and on retention.

I was interested in what the Minister said about the defence co-operation agreement that was signed between France and Britain. I share some of the concerns touched upon by my noble and gallant friend Lord Vincent. I would merely comment that I hope that Europe does not delude itself about its real military capability and does not forget the lessons that we learnt in Bosnia about the inability of the United Nations to provide such things as the strategic direction of a campaign, command and control of operations and real military fighting capability. I hope that this new co-operation agreement, about which the Minister will perhaps tell us more in due course, is more about reality than rhetoric.

I am also delighted that the Government have given such importance to sustainability in the Strategic Defence Review and are taking serious steps to improve it. Sustainability covers a wide field, including having properly manned logistic units, reserves of ammunition, thousands and thousands of spare parts and formed units. My worry is that Options for Change, which did not deliver the smaller but better armed forces that were promised, together with the various cuts that have taken place over a number of years, have resulted in deep cuts to our Armed Forces' sustainability. Noble Lords will remember how much ammunition we had to borrow to support our forces in the Gulf, and that was for only two brigades. I therefore have doubts about whether the defence budget can plug some of these major capability gaps.

My next area of concern is training. Effective training takes time, money and space. Given the operational demands on our Armed Forces and the tightness of the defence budget, there is no doubt that training, particularly for high intensity conflict, is suffering.

Finally, I should like to talk about people, who remain absolutely critical. We have touched on the problems of overstretch and the operational demands now placed upon our forces. Getting the balance right between operational tours of duty, time with family and friends and time on training is critical to retention. I believe that our servicemen and servicewomen have responded magnificently to a whole raft of challenges, but they inevitably feel buffeted, not only by the many reorganisations which they are undergoing but also by the other changes with which they are having to cope. The working time directive, the introduction of a Bill of human rights into British law, which will undoubtedly have an impact on service discipline and the chain of command, and the increased threat of legislation are but a few, and I have mentioned them before in this House. I ask the Minister to recognise that, although what I call short-term morale and spirit are fine, there are too many young, key servicemen and servicewomen, both commissioned and non-commissioned, who are seriously questioning whether they want a long-term career in our Armed Forces. They need a period of stability to regroup.

I have no doubt about the commitment of the Government to our small but very special Armed Forces. However, the armed forces need to feel that they have the wholehearted support of the Government, not just of the Secretary of State for Defence and his ministerial team. In conclusion, on a personal note, I know that defence cannot have a stronger supporter than the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert.

5.50 p.m.

Lord Vivian

My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to speak in today's defence debate. I congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, on his excellent maiden speech. I shall confine my remarks mainly to our future force capabilities, the medical services, including their TA element, military personnel policy and the Territorial Army and cadets.

At the outset I believe that the Strategic Defence Review has been a successful exercise and that the MoD and Chiefs of Staff should be congratulated on producing a review that has clearly studied with great care our future requirements. It has restructured our Navy, Army and Royal Air Force to meet the threats for the next 15 years. At this stage I should like to thank the Minister for keeping me informed of the progress and development of the review during the time that it was being conducted.

However, there are some areas that give me great cause for concern: the Treasury demand for an annual 3 per cent. saving and aid to the civil power in times of national disaster in relation to rogue states who possess weapons of mass destruction. It is in this area where the Territorial Army may have a very great role to play. I query whether the new establishment of the TA is now large enough to be effective in a national disaster role. Some noble Lords have spoken about the TA. I am aware that other noble Lords will speak about reserve forces in some detail. Therefore, I shall be brief. By and large I believe that the TA has been given realistic roles and will be able to train with up-to-date equipment for current operational roles. Although I have noted that some 87 TA centres will be closed, no single TA centre will be shut where there is not another in the same town in which it can be accommodated. The cadet forces have been protected and given some £12 million. The footprint across the country has been preserved. However, there are some concerns and it is still not too late to address them. By and large the TA has been brought up-to-date and will play a more useful part.

I turn for a moment to foreign policy. I am unable to detect any significant changes to existing policies, but the SDR concludes that greater attention is accorded to the Middle East. It has been estimated that 38 countries have ballistic missiles with a range of about 300 kilometres and 14 countries have missiles with a range of some 900 kilometres. In addition to those means of delivery, several countries possess weapons of mass destruction and are in the process of developing them. It is therefore disappointing to note that defence against a threat of this nature has not been addressed more fully or in any detail.

During Options for Change large reductions occurred, with manning levels reduced by 32 per cent. There were even greater reductions in equipment. The SDR imposes further reductions and additions, but these have all been agreed by the Chiefs of Staff. The Royal Navy has lost two further attack submarines, three frigates and three mine warfare vessels, but it has also been given a commitment by the Government that two large aircraft carriers will be built for it in the future. There will be a reduction in manpower of about 1,400 Royal Navy personnel. The Army has lost two armoured regiments but the remaining six regiments will now have 58 tanks each. The two regiments that have lost their armoured role will convert to an armoured reconnaissance regiment and an NBC monitoring regiment. The number of equipment support battalions and Royal Logistic Corps regiments has each increased from six to seven and Army manpower has been increased by 3,300 personnel. The RAF has lost 13 air defence aircraft, 23 offensive air support aircraft and one Rapier squadron but has gained four heavy airlift aircraft.

The greatest concern within the Armed Forces is overcommitment within the current composition and structure of the services which leads to overstretch. That is one of the main reasons for servicemen and women leaving early. The SDR does not bring any reduction in commitments. It has been agreed that the Armed Forces will continue to be trained for high intensity operations and to fight major conflicts. The SDR has restructured the Royal Navy, Army and RAF to ensure less overstretch. Among the measures taken by the Royal Navy to achieve this has been a much more flexible approach to programming ships and submarines to match their commitments and resources. Overstretch will be reduced by changing the deployment of frigates, destroyers and the attack submarine programme which will ease the strain on the fleet.

The measure taken by the Army to reduce overstretch is to base its force structure on manoeuvre and flexibility with two deployable divisions, one in UK and the second in Germany. The divisions will be equally balanced and have three brigades each. To achieve this a sixth brigade will be formed. In addition an air manoeuvre brigade will be created. This new force structure will enable the Ministry of Defence to undertake concurrently two brigade operations: one a relatively short war-fighting deployment and the other an enduring non-war-fighting operation, including fullscale operations. Providing the system can be made to work it should reduce separation of families, assist with retention in the Army, establish stability and prevent skill fade in a unit's primary role. The three services that have been restructured for expeditionary conflict will continue to train for war-fighting and by this reorganisation should reduce overstretch and improve retention and recruiting. The new concept of "Jointery" should secure a more efficient use of resources.

I turn to the medical services. In previous debates many of your Lordships have been most concerned that they have been reduced too much and would not be able to provide the necessary support in a major conflict. I have to declare an interest as I am honorary Colonel to 306 Field Hospital. The SDR concludes that we are committed to restoring operational medical capability to the required level as soon as possible, and a major investment will he made to achieve it". These are very welcome words. It also concludes that a number of improvements would be made to address personnel and equipment shortfalls, provide a 200-bed hospital ship, with a second one on contract if required, ensure that additional hospital beds would be made available and enhance the Army's regular ambulance evacuation capability. All of these proposals are most welcome, including the addition of 2,000 Territorial Army posts to enhance this important service which would have an important role to play in any large conflict. However, here there is a matter of grave concern because out of the so-called 2,000 additional posts 1,222 have been lost. This loss is made up of a recent arbitrary cut of 476, a further reduction of 270 to be transferred to the non-regular permanent staff and 476 to be trained as combat medical technicians and held against the Royal Army Medical Corps Territorial Army establishment. In reality they will be the bandsmen of the yeomanry and infantry regiments.

The story gets worse as it has been decided to disband the TA RAMC band—the only band that it has—consisting of some 50 combat medical technicians. That must be a bitter pill to swallow when it has just been robbed of 476 TA posts for other Territorial Army bands. This is a most unrealistic, ridiculous and absurd arrangement without any logic. Furthermore, it will not be possible to sustain it and it will be a cause for plummeting morale just at the time when new recruits at all levels are required. I ask the Minister to reverse these decisions. Perhaps he could explain in any event why there has been this arbitrary cut in posts.

Some of your Lordships will recall from the defence group visit that we found that the Royal Hospital Haslar, the only military hospital. was located in the wrong place for the Services; was understaffed; had insufficient patients; and was costing an exorbitant amount of money. Furthermore, the wrong decision was taken to move the Royal Army Medical Corps training college from Millbank to Gosport, so that it could be close to the one and only military hospital. The future of Haslar is not known, but one possibility is that it could be closed and another Ministry of Defence health unit established in a National Health Service Hospital. If that is the course of action taken. I ask the Minister to ensure that a centre of medical excellence be created to cover military surgeons, anaesthetists, accident and emergency and other skills; and this new centre should be preferably close to London. That would enable eminent civilian physicians and surgeons to advise and visit this military centre of excellence. In fact, I can see no reason why this new centre of excellence could not be located on the present Millbank site.

The nation is proud and grateful to our Armed Forces who are well equipped and extremely well trained, but they are under-recruited, overstretched and with too much family separation, which leads to lower retention rates and high divorce rates. The Armed Forces will not continue to be so professional and efficient unless the right type of people are attracted to them. In this context the emphasis placed on a "policy for people" was timely and apt and right to have been a key part of the review. It is essential that the measures proposed to provide better terms and conditions of service; improvements in pay and allowances and pension terms; better quality of training; allowing service beyond the 22-year point; providing better education and opportunities to gain civilian recognised qualifications during their service; and the other policy proposals are all implemented with the utmost urgency. As soon as that occurs, recruiting will improve even more than it recently has done and retention rates will go up. These are some of the factors that will reduce overstretch.

There is an area which is of serious and grave concern resulting from the Human Rights Act affecting service discipline. This was raised previously in your Lordships' House and, as far as I can recall, we were led to believe that we were worrying unnecessarily about the possibility of undermining the powers of a commanding officer. The fact of the matter is that it is now a subject of major concern to the services, as a commanding officer may have his powers severely restricted when dealing with disciplinary matters and this may debase the special ethos so vital to the Armed Forces. It is further understood that because of the Human Rights Act there are now difficulties over premature arrests and investigations by the Royal Military Police. I would be most grateful to the Minister if he would clarify the matter and let your Lordships know where the situation stands at the moment.

The successful outcome of the Strategic Defence Review depends on when the conclusions and recommendations will be implemented. It would be helpful if a schedule were published showing the timeframe when the recommendations of this report would be achieved. The report is not convincing about the urgency which is required for implementation of new personnel policies. If these recommendations are not seen to be forthcoming very soon by the Armed Forces, undermanning and overstretch will continue. This review, as always, is highly sensitive and vulnerable to the defence budget and it is essential that short-term financial goals are not achieved at the expense of capabilities critical to the overall strategy. Any proposals for further cuts in real terms below the third year base line could cause the whole strategy to unwind and if any significant aspect ceases to occur on time the whole structure could fall apart. On balance, this is an excellent Strategic Defence Review and commanders at all levels must continue to explain the forthcoming benefits of this review to our loyal, courageous, professional and hardworking servicemen and women to whom the nation is always indebted.

6.4 p.m.

Lord Carver

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I congratulate my noble and gallant friend Lord Vincent of Coleshill on his maiden speech. Like him and my other noble and gallant friend Lord Inge, I in general consider the review to be a good, sensible document, and that despite a liberal sprinkling of those pious platitudes which the civil servants at the Ministry of Defence are so skilled in concocting. I also believe that most of the decisions about the future of the Armed Forces that the review contains are sensible in the light of the fundamental transformation that has taken place in the probable defence tasks that we face.

The most important transformation, in comparison to the time when I became Chief of the Defence Staff a quarter of a century ago—rather a long time ago—is that then we were irrevocably committed to a series of emergency defence plans in NATO, CENTO and SEATO to specific force targets. Today the Government are free to choose how much, when and what they are committed to. I appeal to them not to over-commit the forces for the sake of this curious policy called "punching above your weight".

I shall confine my remarks to only a few aspects of the review. I welcome the review's transparency about numbers of nuclear weapons, the missiles to deliver them and stocks of fissile material. I should like to see the Government press other nuclear powers to follow their example in this respect. I also welcome the reduction in the planned number of what it calls "operationally available warheads" and "missile bodies", and the announcement that submarine missiles will normally be, "at several days' notice to fire".

I welcome too the greater honesty in paragraph 74 about the costs of the programme. But while welcoming all this, I must stress that it makes no difference to my belief that we do not need such a system and that it would both save money and help to discourage proliferation if we gave it up. In fact, the reductions and change in alert status merely highlight the basic illogicality of the whole policy. The sole attempt to justify its strategic basis is in paragraph 60 of the review which merely states: Our minimum deterrent remains a necessary element of our security'. The statements made in paragraphs 4 and 7 of supporting essay five on the subject add nothing significant to that.

In the debate on the Address on 26th November, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, intoned the traditional mantras about why the Government believe our nuclear weapons to be necessary. As he is a trustee of the Council of Arms Control, I hope that he has read the article in its most recent bulletin by the vice-chairman, General Sir Hugh Beach, which effectively demolishes those arguments. If he has not read it, I suggest that he does so. So much for nuclear weapons.

I next turn to the reserve forces. I fully support the measures that the Government are taking to reorganise the Territorial Army and give it a relevant and realistic purpose. It has long been clear to me that, with the exception of certain logistic and medical units, units at regimental or battalion strength were never going to be employed as such; and that the real need was to make it possible for members, or possibly sub-units, of the TA to be able to reinforce regular units, preferably on a voluntary basis. It is absolutely right that in the Territorial Army, with the exception of certain logistic and medical units, the squadron, battery or company should be considered as the basic unit in which local or historical traditions should, as far as possible, be retained.

I have great sympathy for the problem so eloquently explained by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, particularly because when I commanded 4th Armoured Brigade in the whole of the north-west Europe campaign in the Second World War, one of my regiments was the 44th Royal Tank Regiment, which was a Bristol-based TA regiment.

However, if the TA is to be reduced—as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, said, it has to be reduced as the requirement is reduced—there are two ways to set about that inevitable dispersion over the country. One is to do more or less what has been done: to try to retain some presence almost everywhere. The other is to concentrate the Territorial Army on major population centres. I am certain that that would raise just as many objections as were raised by those who have been affected by dispersion. Having been closely involved in reorganising the Army's voluntary reserves, including the TA, over 30 years ago I know that one has to struggle against the serried ranks of local interests and conservatives (with both a large and small "c") to meet the real need. When Richard Haldane was trying to form the territorial force out of the yeomanry volunteers and militia 90 years ago he met with exactly the same resistance—and nowhere more strongly than in this House. I congratulate the Government on having firmly, and, I believe, fairly, grasped this nettle.

My next point is what is known as "jointery": arrangements to make the three services act together or share training facilities. The remarkable advances in electronics in every form, both in friendly forces and potentially hostile ones—in communications, navigation and many different aspects of weapon systems—mean that where all three forces are involved in the same operation or area they must act together. But I should add a word of caution. The review makes clear that it is unlikely that in any serious military operations our own three Armed Forces together would be acting alone, as they did in the Falklands, and certainly not for any great length of time. The Army and the RAF may often act together. Indeed, future developments in technology may make it sensible for them to be integrated to a greater degree than the review suggests; and the RAF and the Royal Navy may act together when the Navy is within range of shore-based aircraft. In that case also future developments in technology are likely to force a greater degree of integration between ships at sea and land-based aircraft supporting them. But occasions when the Army and the Royal Navy act closely together will be rare and of short duration.

More likely than any of those scenarios is one in which we shall be acting with allies, each service fighting alongside the same service of other nations, most probably and most importantly with those of the United States. The ability of each service to operate with, and probably under the command of, United States forces is of higher priority than integrating closely on a tri-service basis by ourselves. A high technology gap is rapidly widening between US forces and our own which threatens our ability to co-operate with or serve under them. Closing that gap is of great importance and will be expensive.

I have another word of warning. It is about the proposal in paragraph 194 to set a target of a 3 per cent. annual saving in operating costs over the next four years on top of the other measures designed to reduce expenditure. That must not be allowed to undermine the resources promised to the forces under the review or to force other changes. A very close watch needs to be kept to ensure that that does not take place. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance on this matter. There are already some disturbing signs that it is threatened.

As the Minister stated, there is to be a NATO summit next April on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the treaty which formed the North Atlantic Alliance. The meeting is due to consider a new strategic concept. What will be the Government's attitude towards pressure from the United States to formalise a military role for the alliance outside its present boundaries? It is a difficult matter. I hope that the government attitude towards it will be favourable. What will be their attitude to further enlargement? Do the Government still believe what was stated in paragraph 38 of the review: that the admission of the three new members is, a welcome first step in a carefully managed process of enlargement which will strengthen both the Alliance itself and European security as a whole"? I hope that the rumours I have heard are true: that both the American Government and our Government are having second thoughts about further enlargement. I hope that the Minister can give us answers to those important questions.

Finally, I welcome the moves which the Government are considering, of which there was no hint in the review, to make a reality of a European defence identity in which we, Germany and France would take the lead. I have long advocated that, and I hope that the Government will put real and imaginative effort behind it. I noted with care the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Owen, made on this subject in the debate on the Address. He expressed himself strongly opposed to the establishment of any new organisation, in particular if it were to have any link with the European Parliament; and he favoured a strengthening of the Western European Union. I agree with his first point but not his second. WEU has existed in a sort of limbo since the formation of the North Atlantic Alliance. In the past few years attempts have been made to breathe some life into it, largely in order to avoid any move towards an organisation linked with the European Union. But the right answer is not to try to resuscitate it but to wind it up.

On a number of occasions, both in this House and elsewhere, I have put forward my own solution. I do so again as briefly as I can. It is that the North Atlantic Alliance's military organisation, NATO, should be radically transformed so that it consists of three elements: first, the United States forces assigned to the alliance, straightforwardly—it is only recognising reality—under their own national command; and, secondly, a more or less integrated European military command and training organisation within the alliance, not separate like the WEU. Britain, France and Germany must be members of it and any other members of the alliance who wished could join. It should be capable of commanding operations either under American command or independently. The third element would be those members of the alliance who did not wish to assign their forces permanently to this organisation but who could do so for any operation in which they wished to participate. Adoption of that solution would make it possible to abolish NATO's huge bureaucratic headquarter staffs which are bound to grow if the alliance is enlarged and NATO, as the military organisation, remains in its present pattern. We do not want to create a new organisation outside the alliance, as seemed to be indicated by some of the comments from the recent Anglo-French meeting at St. Malo. If the transformation I have proposed were to be adopted, most of my objections to enlargement would dissolve, particularly if it were accompanied by the establishment of a nuclear weapon-free zone from the eastern borders of Germany to the western ones of Russia.

Apart from their general intention, it is not at all clear to me what the Government have in mind as a formal structure for a European defence identity. Bilateral agreements with the French are not enough. I therefore offer the Government my solution, with the compliments of the season.

6.18 p.m.

Lord Hardy of Wath

My Lords, this debate and previous exchanges in the House seem to demonstrate that the SDR commands considerable respect—rather more than the prospect of the review was afforded in the previous Parliament. It commands respect because it is justified; and it is justified largely because it is realistic. It is realistic because it recognises the fact that in this world there is insecurity, barbarism, horror and great instability. That has been the case since the end of the Cold War brought an intensification of regional rivalries and other uncertainties. During that period, British servicemen and servicewomen were heavily involved. Clearly, Her Majesty's Government expect that as crises, difficulties and disasters occur British service personnel will continue to be involved. Perhaps they will be involved on a scale which is inequitable in comparison with the contribution provided by other members of the alliance.

The SDR recognises those needs, but there are social and disciplinary difficulties, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian. I am an amateur student of military history. It reminded me that on the morning before the Charge of the Light Brigade the general commanding ordered three troopers to be flogged for smoking in their lines. One of them was flogged after the charge. No doubt in the years which followed, Members spoke in this House in order to make military discipline more humane. But people might have asked, "What will the Army come to if generals do not have the freedom to act with a degree of arbitrariness?". I do not suggest that noble Lords who reached eminent rank in the Army would wish to see the return of the days of that particular general. We are seeing the Ministry and the services recognise that they can and will happily adapt to the new requirements which a more civilised society, rightly or wrongly, has placed upon them.

At least the debate will continue in this House and in Europe. There has been, and there will be, no lack of debate in Europe. An unfortunate aspect is that politicians from the countries which do little will continue to say a great deal. They will happily seize upon the suggestions made in the debate, not least from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, about the future structure of European security. I listened with great interest because I took part in many debates on these matters in the WEU. On occasion one felt considerable irritation.

I shall not repeat a fairly long passage of a speech that I made in this House shortly after my introduction, when I described my horror at the sheer triumphalism of the debates in the WEU. The triumphalism was most expressed by parliamentarians from countries which had made no contribution. It was rather odious, in particular as some of us felt that the Gulf War ended a little too soon. Perhaps subsequent events have justified that view.

However, there is a difference now. No doubt it was a matter of relief to my noble friend Lady Symons at Question Time last week when she said that our partners in Europe appeared to have no objection to British involvement in the Gulf. That may represent a considerable step forward, but it does not give us a great deal of hope that there will be urgent improvement in a sense of commitment.

Although I criticise the WEU, I believe that it can be and should be an essential part of the European security structure. It needs to be improved. The parliamentary assembly needs to be far more willing to discard the posture of tamed docility in response to Ministers speaking on behalf of or to the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers should be far more willing to look at the detail rather than providing fine sounding statements every couple of years. The office of the Secretary General needs to be a great deal more robust. We must not have the situation that I encountered when I was told by the Secretary General that members of the parliamentary assembly can ask questions only about those forces under the control of WEU. It does not take a great knowledge of the organisation for noble Lords to be aware that the WEU has commanded little in the way of resources before the Armilla Patrol and not all that much since. The organisation needs to be made more meaningful.

I say that because I have real anxiety about the call to transfer the responsibility for foreign and security policy to Brussels. I am not critical of Brussels—I believe that Europe must develop and emerge—but Europe has a lot on its plate. I wonder at what point in its scale of priorities security and defence might be placed. The Commission has long been interested and involved in and sought responsibility for industrial matters. Yet we have a grossly unsatisfactory situation within the European defence industry. We find our partners complaining about a one-way street. It is not a one-way street. The Americans would be justified in complaining if we sought to divert traffic upon it, given the scale of their investment and the efforts which America has made in largely securing the consolidation of its defence industry. The steps towards achieving that consolidation in Europe have been too halting and too much delayed.

One could exempt the United Kingdom from many of the strictures that one could offer on that matter. British Aerospace is now the largest of the European companies, although not quite to the standard or scale of the American titan. But as a result of investment and skilled operation it has emerged as the leading player in the defence industry scene within Europe. National interests, hesitation and inadequate prioritisation have left the European industry in a less competitive state than the American giant which invested a great deal.

My noble friend, who is far more expert in these matters than I, may wish to comment on some aspects of the present and developing state of co-operation within the European defence industry. He may be able to comment on the Eurofighter—or the Typhoon, as it is now called—and tell us, as it is an extremely important development, a little about its commercial prospects.

It might also be appropriate for us to look ahead as well as at recent events. There is a great deal of concern and interest in the next generation of military aircraft; in the fighter and strike aircraft which will emerge in the next century. Are we to see adequate European and transatlantic co-operation in these fields? Is it possible to say when public debate, because public debate there must be, can reasonably begin on these matters? It may also be appropriate for my noble friend to refer to the future role of unmanned vehicles and aircraft.

I and a number of noble Lords, some of whom are or were present in the Chamber, recently visited the British Army in Germany. It was a most impressive visit. If I left with one anxiety it was that we are seeing, and quite properly, the deployment of large numbers of strike helicopters. But it is equally obvious that the Royal Regiment of Artillery and presumably other artillery units in other countries are also developing an increasing capacity to respond to the strike helicopter. Whether they can respond to the faster ground attack aircraft such as the Harrier is doubtful at this stage. But one should understand that human ingenuity is considerable and the strike helicopter may receive a ready response by the development of new modern anti-aircraft capacity.

I do not want to stray far because I wish to make two or three other points. First, I and many other noble Lords will be happy when our servicemen can once again walk about in uniform. I am not at all convinced that the general public in this country are fully aware of the quality and existence of our service people. It is all very well having military soaps which may be interesting on television, but really our public coverage of the work and role of our Armed Forces is grossly inadequate.

During the Gulf War, I spent a good deal of time in Paris, attending a series of WEU committees. Each time I went back to my hotel and switched on the television, you could have sworn that no one else was involved in the Gulf War except our friends, the French. And yet, if one watched television in England, you were more likely to see an F-18 flying than a Tornado. You were more likely to see American personnel. That is quite right because they provided the great bulk of the forces, although one would not have deduced that from the French experience.

However, people should be aware of the service given and the achievements made. For example, I doubt whether 1 per cent. of the people of this country are aware of the contribution which Royal Air Force aircraft made in the airstrikes which compelled the Serbs to reach the Dayton Accord. And yet, those particular missions were of enormous importance for they demonstrated beyond doubt that it was possible to deliver the smart bombs with absolute precision, something which had never until recent years been available to anybody's air force. I accept that the Cruise missile may have the same degree of accuracy, but my noble friend may be able to confirm that it costs 20 times as much as a bomb which could achieve the same purpose.

We need to see people in uniform and we need to promote an understanding, awareness and appreciation which our services should command. That is particularly important if we are to ensure that the future reserves not merely recruit but retain. It is of considerable importance because the retention rate in many TA units—and no noble Lord has mentioned it—was quite deplorable.

My final point is that as a boy, before I joined the Royal Air Force, I was in the Air Training Corps for three or four years. I found it extremely enjoyable, and since I left the other place I have been delighted to be linked again with the Air Training Corps. I am president of our squadron in the Rotherham area in South Yorkshire. There I meet keen, healthy, concerned and active young people who are responding to challenges and seizing opportunities in a way which I find is quite delightful. In our local newspapers, we see too much of crime, drugs and the irresponsibility of some of our youngsters. Those in the cadet organisations—and I have seen something, too, of the Army cadets in recent months—are doing a great deal. I hope that any committed territorial who now finds his unit weakened, reduced or based many miles away—as the noble Lord, Lord Cope explained in describing the South West—will be brought in to work with the cadet organisations.

We need to see more adult voluntary commitment and involvement, not merely in the cadet forces but the same applies across the whole area of youth organisations in this country. The cadet organisations are doing a great deal. Obviously, many of the cadets will provide first-class servicemen when they become older. But the contribution to the community is much wider than that. I hope that that contribution can be continued and, indeed, enhanced. I was particularly grateful that the cadet organisations in my area can look forward to the future rather than face the anxiety which they may have felt before the SDR. In my view, that part of the SDR is extremely important. Perhaps I may say that among the people involved in our local Air Training Corps, there is a great deal of gratitude.

6.33 p.m.

Lord Monro of Langholm

My Lords, after such a galaxy of five-star generals, we are now reduced to a one-star air commodore. Immediately, I begin my remarks by congratulating the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, on a very fine maiden speech. I believe that the noble and gallant Lord and the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Carver and Lord Inge, were hinting diplomatically that they hoped that we should stay much closer to NATO rather than the European Union in relation to defence. I am sure that that message will be taken up by the Minister when he winds up the debate.

With Options for Change, the Royal Air Force took a severe knock, as indeed did the other services. In line with that, equal pain was prevalent within the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, of which I happen to be the honorary inspector-general and have been for some years. We lost four defence force flights and three squadrons, including the two which had the Oerliken guns which we had captured in the Falklands, and two wing headquarters. Since then, there have been years of steady development. The RAF realises that the auxiliaries are well-trained, efficient and part of the line of battle and, most important, are cost effective.

Therefore, we faced the SDR with a great deal of confidence and that was certainly not misplaced, with an increase of 10 per cent. in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force as proposed in the announcement made recently by the Minister. We are now able to develop the Royal Support Squadrons. I visited the Helicopter Support Squadron on the Isle of Wight recently and was impressed not only with the training facilities but also with the squadron itself. There is also the Air Transportable Surgical Squadron. The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, will be interested to know, because he was talking about medical support, that we have very long waiting lists for our two medical squadrons. There are many consultants queuing up to join and, I believe, even moving their practices from England to Scotland so that they can join the squadron there at Leuchars. That demonstrates that there are many senior and highly-qualified doctors anxious to serve their country if the facilities are right for them. In addition, we have two training squadrons developed over recent years.

In 1997, there was the significant and welcome amalgamation between the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force into the single Royal Auxiliary Air Force. That added to our strength with two intelligence squadrons, a photo-interpretation squadron, a PR squadron, and a met. squadron. Many individuals from those squadrons have been providing extremely valuable service in Bosnia. I am glad to say that we have not only had strong support from Ministers, and in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, but we have had support also from the Chief of Air Staff, Sir Richard Johns, and the Air Force Board.

All those auxiliaries are active volunteers. They must not be mistaken for the full-time reservists or, indeed, the many ex-regulars who appear on the computers but not on the parade ground. I am glad to say that the flying training programme has been going very well indeed. We have air crew and helicopters. We have a Hercules and now, at last, some fast jets as well. They bring back memories of the 21 flying squadrons that we had up to 1957 and the 16 squadrons which behaved so heroically during the Battle of Britain.

So it is good news that I am reporting to the Minister and I am grateful to him for the help that he has given since he took up his post.

However, there are two issues which I ask him to consider this evening and perhaps he will write to me about them as soon as he can. I know that the Royal Air Force is going through a strategic manpower review as part of the total force concept. A moratorium has been placed on our Royal Support Squadrons in relation to recruiting and training. A solution must be reached quickly because those volunteers do not wish to sit there marking time and wondering what is to happen to them in the future. I hope that we may be given approval to go ahead in the very near future so that we can proceed again with recruitment and the full training programme and know exactly where we are going.

Secondly, I wish to talk about the ethos of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. There seems to be an impression in the Ministry of Defence, and perhaps elsewhere, that auxiliaries will be called out only in a major conflict. That is wrong. We would not be called out for short-notice operations or on humanitarian tasks. When a Royal Auxiliary Air Force serviceman or service woman joins up and signs on, they give that right for immediate call-up and are operationally trained to fulfil any role. It is important that it should be appreciated by Ministers in the Ministry of Defence that they are ready to go anywhere at the drop of a hat.

There are good procedures for when an individual is not able to go. For instance, when we sent two squadrons to the Gulf only two members were not able to go—for very good reasons; they had university final exams a few weeks ahead and were granted leave of absence. The Gulf conflict showed how effective the squadrons could be, particularly the movement squadron 4624 which did so much in the way of loading aircraft in this country and abroad.

Therefore I hope that the Minister can give me an assurance that the Royal Auxiliary Air Force will be called out for any operations for which their services are required. If we do not do that—this was prevalent after the Gulf conflict—not only will those auxiliaries who are not called out feel aggrieved that they were overlooked, but their employers will say, "We allowed these servicemen leave for 14 days continuous training, weekends and so forth, yet when a conflict arises such as that in the Gulf, they are not wanted". That is a wrong impression to give employers. I know NELC worked on this and we want to make sure that it does not happen again.

As I said earlier, we are the first line of reserve to the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and we want to remain that way. We have a high retention rate. Many members of squadrons in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force have served 10, 15 or more years. That is good for recruiting and for promoting and it brings stability. We want stability and we want to have confidence that there will be no more changes in the future.

My message to the Minister therefore as we approach the year of our 75th anniversary is that the Royal Auxiliary Air Force is in very good heart and pleased at the way things are going at the moment. But I want to make two or three quick points on a broader front. First, I read in the newspaper at the weekend that there was further talk about the air-sea rescue service being taken from the Royal Air Force and given to the coastguard or privatised. That would be a retrograde step. The reputation of the Royal Air Force in search and rescue is enormous. All of us, particularly in Scotland where there is so much mountain rescue as well as sea-borne rescue, feel that it would be a great loss to public confidence if the Royal Air Force ceased to be in the lead. That is no criticism of the coastguard which does a very good job with helicopters itself.

Secondly, I know the Minister is being cautious to get it right in relation to TAVRA. It is important to us in the Royal Auxiliary. We receive tremendous support from the vice-chairman and her organisation. I know it is a tri-service, but people tend to think it is just an Army organisation. It looks after the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy Reserves as well. I hope the Minister will look carefully at the geographical changes in mind for TAVRA so that it comes out in the best way for all those who are interested in it.

I join with the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, in saying "Well done" on behalf of the cadets. All their headquarters are being retained and from my enquiries I understand that they can count on the full flying programme in the future. It is an important incentive to allow the Royal Air Training Corps cadets to fly each year with the Royal Air Force. I believe too that the Government are right to support the Army and Navy cadets which do so much along with the Air Training Corps for outward-bound activities and all the aspects mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy. We want to make certain that that continues in the future.

Finally, like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I was concerned with my area which I represented for a long time in the House of Commons. It ran from Berwick to Stranraer—240 miles—and had one platoon and one company. It seemed a huge distance for whoever was doing the training, but at least they managed to retain the headquarters in Dumfries, to be shared with the cadets of the three services. By and large I give the Minister support for what is achieved in the review, even though it may have left many unhappy people in the Territorial Army. I am sure that at the end of the day many of those problems will be resolved and it may not then be as bad as it seems.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Chalfont

My Lords, I wish to add my congratulations to my noble and gallant friend Lord Vincent on his excellent maiden speech. The good sense and thoughtful nature of his comments will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with his distinguished military career. Perhaps I may say also at this point that the House is fortunate to benefit from the views of two other noble and gallant Field Marshals who have spoken this evening and who add so much to the debates of this House on military subjects.

I want to concentrate my few brief remarks today on a subject which is crucial to any defence policy (the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, mentioned this in passing) but to which we are not giving sufficiently high priority; that is, the question of missile defence both in a national context and in the context, perhaps more importantly, of the security of our armed forces when they are operating overseas.

The Strategic Defence Review was, in my view and that of other noble Lords, a courageous and constructive blueprint for creating defence forces appropriate to the new strategic environment. It is possible to have reservations about the detail of any review—for instance, the wisdom of substantial cuts in our reserve forces which have already received considerable attention this evening. But, more importantly, the Select Committee on Defence in another place warned us that the, Strategic Defence Review was very finely balanced"— which indeed it is. But more significantly, it went on to criticise the SDR for failing adequately to consider the need for ballistic missile defence systems, to protect expeditionary forces and the UK mainland". It is that concern which I want to underline and highlight today. In the Strategic Defence Review that matter received only one brief mention and that was in one of the excellent supporting essays that came with the review.

The Strategic Defence Review moved this country towards the concept of expeditionary force structures allowing a greater freedom of action in a wider range of theatres around the globe. Indeed, the Secretary for Defence said in his introduction to the Strategic Defence Review In the post Cold War world we must be prepared to go to the crisis rather than have the crisis come to us". But if the Gulf War taught us anything, it was that any future expeditionary force of that kind might well come under crippling attack from missiles, ballistic or otherwise, possibly armed with warheads of mass destruction—chemical, biological or even nuclear. That threat has been described on so many occasions that it is otiose to repeat it in detail. The best recent analysis for those who wish to go into it more deeply is a document called the Fundamental Issue Study, written and edited by Professor Neville Brown, which was published in February of this year. But that was a dense and closely argued document.

It is enough for the purposes of this debate to underline the fact that in 1995 the United States Central Intelligence Agency estimated that at least 20 countries had or may be developing weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile delivery systems. Of those, North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Libya already possessed, or may have been developing, weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile systems which could threaten the security of any of our expeditionary forces operating in any future conflict. If they continue to develop such systems, they could in due course threaten our own national territory or at least that of our allies.

As recently as 17th November this year, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, and the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, the Ministry of Defence issued a document which was an assessment of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons stockpiles. I remind noble Lords that those stockpiles, together with the Scud missiles which the Iraqis possessed, inflicted more than 20,000 casualties in the war with Iran. It is therefore vital that we should examine, with some urgency, a means of defending any British expeditionary force against a threat of that kind. I do not think that it is too early to ask ourselves whether we need to contemplate the possibility of a national missile defence system. I know that that would be prohibitively and cripplingly expensive, but it may well be necessary in any future conflict with what has already been described as a "rogue state".

Before I leave the subject of Iraq and the paper on that country's weapons of mass destruction, can the Minister in his reply tell the House anything about what is happening at the military installation at Ibn A1 Haitham near Baghdad? He will know that that missile plant has recently been substantially expanded and might well be—indeed, according to some intelligence reports, already is—producing longer-range missiles than those which Iraq has possessed in the past. Have the UN inspectors been given any access to that installation? If so, what have they found? It would be enlightening if the Minister could say a word about that when he replies.

Perhaps I may say a word on the nuclear striking force. I congratulate the Government on the firmness but flexibility of their policy towards our nuclear deterrent. As the Strategic Defence Review states, that is an essential element of our national security. As the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, recently stated in this House, it may have to be used in extreme circumstances of self-defence, which includes the defence of our NATO allies. Perhaps I may say with the greatest of respect to my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver that I think that far from demolishing the Government's case, the views of General Sir Hugh Beach in the latest issue of the Bulletin of Arms Control go a long way to underline its strength. Perhaps my noble and gallant friend and I can take up that argument at some future date.

I see that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, is no longer in his place, but I think that it is worth saying, for the record, that I too was in the Far East when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Our intelligence estimates at that time indicated to us that if we had to invade Japan in order to bring the war to an end, hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers, sailors and airmen would have been killed. That invasion was made unnecessary by the use of the atom bomb. Whatever others may say, I have no difficulty at all in deciding in which direction my moral and ethical judgments lie on that argument.

I move away from the question of the nuclear deterrent because, for the purpose of defending our expeditionary forces, the threat of retaliation by use of the nuclear deterrent is not relevant. The question has already been put by an American analyst in the following form—and I hope that it is one that our military planners have asked themselves: Suppose that a ballistic missile with an anthrax warhead were fired at our armed forces in an expeditionary operation, is it credible that we would be willing to turn Baghdad into the next Hiroshima in retaliation? The answer must be perfectly obvious to anyone. There is surely only one alternative: the need for ballistic missile defence to prevent our forces being destroyed by such a potential enemy.

The need for such defence has already had a wide measure of endorsement. In October, the United States announced that it had allocated an additional 1 billion dollars to step up the development of its theatre and national missile defence systems. It was announced only last week that the Ballistic Missile Defence Office in the United States was analysing potential sites across the country for its own national missile defence system. Meanwhile, it has been announced that Japan has agreed to join the USA in a joint research programme on theatre missile defence. Earlier this month a memorandum was signed by the United States and Israel aimed at strengthening Israel's defence against the threat of long-range missiles and non-conventional weapons. The United States is fully committed to a programme known as the Theatre High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) which is conceived principally for defence in overseas tactical situations rather than for national defence. Finally, there is the Medium Extended Air Defence System (MEADS) in which the United States, Germany and Italy plan together to develop a mobile defence system capable of intercepting and destroying theatre ballistic and, indeed, cruise missiles. Attempts to persuade the United Kingdom to join that system have so far been in vain.

In the Strategic Defence Review, that whole vital question was relegated to virtually one sentence. The Government have said that it would now be premature to decide to acquire a ballistic missile defence capability. However, the Ministry of Defence has committed itself to monitoring the threat, participating in NATO studies and working closely with our allies. That is most encouraging and those are unexceptionable sentiments. It is certainly of vital importance in working out a ballistic missile defence policy of the kind I regard as essential to proceed on an alliance basis. I should like to ask the Minister whether we are not being a little too cautious and conservative about that, if I may use that word. The three-year programme which the Government have undertaken on technology readiness and risk assessment is one way of approaching the problem, but does the Minister agree that it may well be overtaken by events?

Finally, apart from the important matter of the security of our expeditionary forces, which is at the heart of this imaginative and constructive Strategic Defence Review, there is also the important matter of the security of Europe. Planning staff in the German defence ministry published a paper as long ago as 1990 which contained the following sentence: A strengthened deployment of missile defence capabilities against the potential threat of Third Countries is in the interest of global stability and is preventive protection against new threats to all the states of Europe". I should be grateful to know whether the Government agree with that assessment and whether they are content that the UK, almost alone among the major powers of the Atlantic alliance, should have only what seems to be a watching brief in one of the vital strategic issues of the post-Cold War world.

6.58 p.m.

Baroness Cox

My Lords, I offer my contribution with considerable trepidation as I have no military background whatever. However, I want to focus on the Defence Medical Services for two reasons. The first arises from my professional background as a nurse. Because of that I inevitably hear many and repeated expressions of concern from both nursing and medical colleagues. The second reason stems from the specific reference made to the problems of the DMS by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, in his contribution to the debate on the Address. The contributions of the noble and gallant Lord are, of course, always highly significant and immensely powerful. I was therefore especially concerned when he drew parallels between the Territorial Army and the DMS, fearing that the stuffing would be knocked out of the TA, just as the last government, despite warning after warning, also with plans hatched in the Ministry of Defence, justified with exactly the same exhortations about modernisation and relevance in the modern world, virtually destroyed the Armed Forces' Medical Services with disastrous consequences which this Government are now desperately trying to tackle".—[Official Report, 26/11/98; col. 148.] I am reassured that the noble and gallant Lord believes that this Government are now trying to tackle the problems besetting the DMS. I was also pleased to hear the Minister refer in his opening speech to some of the initiatives already under way, some of which are identified in the SDR.

However, my noble friend Lord Vivian has highlighted some continuing concerns about the DMS. I have to say that there does not seem to be much sign that the proposed initiatives are yet having any significant effects on the men and women now in these services—perhaps I should say "still in these services". Many have left or are leaving, disillusioned and demoralised. One medical officer said to me only last week, "If the situation continues as bad as it is, you won't be having this debate on the DMS much longer, as they will have ceased to exist." Just two days ago, another medical officer reeled off a list of names of several colleagues who have either just given notice or are about to do so. I was also told that a senior executive officer working within the DMS recently claimed that it would take only three or four more consultants to leave for the medical service to implode.

Those are just a few examples of a disturbingly large number of representations I have received, all reflecting acute concern at the implications of the current situation for those still in post, and, more seriously for the future, fears that the capacity to maintain a viable medical service will be so diminished that our Armed Forces will not have the medical back-up they need to provide essential support in the event of future conflict.

Your Lordships will be well aware that those engaged in action must have confidence that, in the event of injury, they will receive immediate and comprehensive treatment. The knowledge that this treatment is available is vital to the morale of fighting forces. It must be a national priority to ensure that those who risk life and health in active service are entitled to the highest possible quality of medical and nursing care.

In addition, in keeping with the Government's commitment to an "ethical foreign policy" and their increasing commitment to the work of the United Nations, this "support service" is being required to make a major contribution to the peacekeeping and aid operations which are increasingly occupying service personnel.

Some of the major concerns relating to the DMS are interrelated: the recruitment and retention of staff; career prospects; terms and conditions of service; and adequate clinical facilities for the provision of appropriate care. I offer your Lordships a few examples to illustrate the general issues. I begin with recruitment. I am aware that there may have been some recent improvement in this respect. However, there is still a very serious shortfall; for example, in 1996–97 there were 25 entrants to the RAMC, compared with a projected target of 55. Moreover, even an improved recruitment rate cannot compensate for the reductions which have already occurred and which are destroying the training base of the medical and dental services, and the seriousness of the problems caused by the large numbers of more senior personnel who have left the services. It is impossible to run a medical service on junior and relatively inexperienced staff.

The Defence Costs Study of 1994 reported that about 1,400 uniformed doctors and dentists were employed by the regular Armed Forces and proposed that up to 750 should be made redundant. In 1997, there were only 870 uniformed doctors left and there are now serious shortages in key personnel such as surgeons, anaesthetists and general practitioners. In the RAMC, the requirement is for 511 doctors. I understand that the current number in post is only 434. This deficit has serious knock-on effects. For example, the greater the number of shortages, the greater the pressure on those still in service with a subsequent further decline in morale. This may lead to more resignations and a downward spiral of falling retention and recruitment. That is why the cumulative effects of previous and current policies and mismanagement are so serious.

The problem of morale is exacerbated by diminished promotion prospects for medical personnel in both primary and secondary care. These are relatively poor and slow compared with those of non-medical colleagues. For example, in the Royal Navy a competent seaman officer may well become a captain by the age of 40 whereas a well qualified medical officer, who will have spent a great deal of time and effort working for specialist qualifications, may have to wait until somewhere between the age of 43 to 47 to obtain comparable promotion, if at all.

It may be thought that disaffection caused by such poor promotion prospects may be bought off by salary increases. But I have been told again and again that this is not the case. Medical personnel who see their peer group seamen officers being promoted well ahead of them feel that they are being discriminated against unjustly. Noble Lords will be aware of the significance of rank in service life and of the importance of the authority which accompanies rank in relationships with other officers. It is ludicrous to adopt a policy of reduced promotion prospects for an already demoralised DMS, especially if it will not cost more to recognise their seniority and expertise by appropriate promotions on a time-scale comparable to their non-medical colleagues.

Added to truncated and discriminatory career prospects are problems of frustration caused by apparent mismanagement. For example, in recent years, with one exception, doctors' pay rises have been several months late. This year, the delay was four months—from April to August. As one medical officer said: It is not clever to treat an already disaffected and worried service with such inefficiency and apparent contempt". There is also acute anxiety over the possible closure of Haslar Hospital, reference to which was made by my noble friend Lord Vivian. This is the only remaining main military hospital in this country, together with a subsidiary hospital at Catterick. The closure of Haslar would mean virtually complete dependence on MoD hospital units (MDHUs) attached to National Health Service hospitals. It would be interesting to know how many other western countries with sophisticated armed services have abolished all their military hospitals. While the arguments for combining military and civilian facilities may make sense to the Treasury, the knock-on effects for service personnel and for the provision of adequate medical care in the event of war must be potentially very serious.

I shall give your Lordships two brief examples in that respect. The first concerns service personnel. If all medical services are to be provided by MDHUs in NHS hospitals, there is a real danger that military medical and nursing staff will have all the disadvantages of service commitments with none of the advantages. They will find themselves working alongside NHS staff who may be better paid than they are; they will have the inevitable disruptions to personal and family life of postings away from home, but none of the advantages of the distinctive ethos of service life and "mess" facilities. Many are therefore asking why they should stay in the services. If Haslar is closed, some predict that the present steady flow of resignations could become a flood.

I turn now to my second example. It is, of course, difficult to maintain a balance between provision of adequate clinical services for situations of peace and war. But there is serious concern over a shortfall of medical and nursing staff, especially those with expertise in highly sophisticated specialties such as the care of patients with burns, or with facio-maxillary surgery. The NHS already suffers severe shortages in many such specialist services, even without having to care for the influx of casualties which would occur in the event of conflict. The enormous changes to the DMS, with concentration in DHMUs, have been made far too hastily, causing confusion and even lower morale among service staff who have not yet opted to leave, while a disturbingly high proportion of those who are leaving are newly appointed consultants and well-qualified general practitioners—the senior personnel. Many doctors and nurses in the services have been angered by the perception that their concerns have been belittled by senior executives and by medical management at the highest levels.

I turn briefly to the situation in Germany where secondary care is now provided by the German hospital service. The notes provided by German doctors have to be translated back in Britain, and translations may take up to three months. Also, German doctors are using different drugs in different combinations from their United Kingdom counterparts and their instructions have to be amended in order to take into account drugs made in the UK.

The cumulative effect of these recent changes and of the current shortages are reflected in problems associated with reservists. Shortages of regulars have highlighted the problems which can arise when undue reliance is placed on the reserve forces. During the Gulf War it was clear that the regular medical personnel were inadequate in numbers and in composition. As a result, a large number of territorials and other reservists had to be called upon. It would appear that the Armed Forces are being allowed to make savings without regard to the impact on the NHS. Conversely, many NHS trusts are reluctant to allow key personnel the time they need to pursue medical military training with the reserve forces and many reservists had difficulty obtaining release from their National Health Service posts during the Gulf War. It is the BMA's view that the Reserve Forces Act does not provide adequate support for reservists needing release from their civilian employment.

These tensions in the NHS are exacerbated by the emphasis on competition through the internal market, and problems with recruitment and retention of both consultants and GPs have led to a climate in which NHS employers are equivocal about the commitment they make to employee reservists asking for time off for military training. Your Lordships will be aware that regular training is an essential requirement for reservists, and there is fear of insufficient safeguards to ensure that NHS employers are obliged to give the necessary time off to enable reservists to maintain the training they need to be available as an effective resource in time of need.

We live in a world where many unstable situations could erupt into further serious conflicts involving this country's Armed Forces. It is clear that at present there are very serious problems with regard to the availability of an adequate DMS to provide essential care for service personnel in the event of such conflicts. Therefore, I hope the Minister will today be able to offer reassurances, not only to noble Lords but to the many personnel in the DMS—doctors, nurses, medical assistants and others—who are currently experiencing anxiety, demoralisation and disaffection.

I understand that an independent market research survey is currently being undertaken to ascertain the views of all service medical officers about conditions of service and career intentions. I believe that the results of the survey will be very informative and important. Will the Minister undertake to make the findings of the survey available to Parliament so that subsequent debate can take this very significant evidence into account.

While recognising that many of the problems confronting the DMS are a legacy of the previous government, there has not as yet been much to reassure it from the present Government. I hope that tonight the Minister may be a harbinger of good tidings, in keeping with the spirit of Advent, and begin to reverse the downward spiral of frustration and discontent before it is too late and the DMS deteriorates beyond the point of resuscitation.

7.13 p.m.

Baroness Strange

My Lords, I feel a little strange speaking from exactly the same seat in the House from which I made my maiden speech 12 years ago. In fact, I had half intended not to speak, until persuaded by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, at tea yesterday. But of course if I did not feel Strange at all there would be something seriously wrong.

It is a privilege, as always, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I would like briefly to congratulate my noble and gallant friend the Master Gunner, who is no longer in his place, on a clear, authoritative and brilliant maiden speech, with every phrase of which I personally agreed. The Strategic Defence Review is an excellent document, not only because the noble Lord the Minister, Lord Gilbert, has been so supportive of this House by asking your Lordships for your opinions, and acting on some of them, but because it starts from the premise "What do we need defence for?" It follows on from that. There are, as I see it, only two flaws in it, and they both spring from ignoring the unexpected, which, alas, in this world is what usually happens.

The first flaw is in cutting down the Territorials. I shall only mention this very briefly as it was so excellently and brilliantly covered by my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall when he was speaking after the gracious Speech two weeks ago. Not only did he speak much better on the subject than I could have done, he was also much fiercer than I should have dared to be. He made the point—and as he is not speaking today, I shall make it again—that the Territorials are the only reserves we have got. However, he did not perhaps emphasise as much as I should have liked the Scottish Territorials. On this subject the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence has already made very considerable moves and concessions in the right direction. It is excellent that there will still be territorial centres in Fife—at Baltimore Road in Glenrothes, at Bothwell House in Elgin Street, Dunfermline (though not at Bruce House), at Hunter Street, Kirkcaldy and at Yeomanry House in Cupar. There will still be a territorial presence at RAF Leuchars, though not, alas, at RAF Kinloss or Lossiemouth. Having had many happy associations with it in its naval days, I am saddened that HMS Camperdown in Dundee is now finally to be shut down and not even used to store vehicles any more. I am delighted that the Black Watch is to retain its territorial presence in Perth at Queen's Barracks, although a diminished one with 25 men and a band strength of 34. My great-great uncle and my father both served in the Black Watch, and my husband's uncle won the VC serving in it during the First World War, so I do feel a very strong attachment.

There is an old Victorian ballad about the army volunteers, which I can only remember in part—perhaps mercifully—so your Lordships are very largely spared. But it is, in many ways, relevant. It begins: A queer wee man wis Jimmy Shaw And he and his wife and his mither-in-law They keppit a wee bit shoppie in Dundee. But he joined what I believe must be the Victorian equivalent of the Territorials, for the chorus is: Noo Jimmie's jined the Volunteers, A pair of tartan breeks he wears, Marching off to fame and glory. However, after many vicissitudes and much fighting, in which Jimmy distinguished himself, there was clearly an Options for Change, or merely a Strategic Defence Review, for the final verse—which ends happily, your Lordships will be relieved to hear—is: Noo here he is at the Queen's Review, What though his troops are terrible few, A sergeant, and a piper, and one man. The Queen she says, "Weel, Mr Shaw, Your men are as fine as ever I saw, Though they're no sae very numerous it seems. But gie's the lane o' your sword," says she, And doon ye get on yer bendit knee, And I'll mak ye Major General Sir Jeems. The other flaw in the Strategic Defence Review is that either there are not enough people in the services or there are too many commitments—whichever way one looks at it—to avoid overstretch. Unlike many noble Lords, I have no personal service experience, but I have been privileged with the Defence Study Group to visit many of our Armed Forces and their families, both in this country and abroad. What has always emerged, like a shining light, is how brave, skilled, professional, uncomplaining and dedicated they all are. But let us not forget that, however many rare virtues they possess, they are still people and they need to spend time with their families. Twenty-four months between front line tours is all right. Anything less is not—and the time between front line tours, combined with away-from-home training, is often very much less than that.

Christmas is a time for thinking about families, for being with families. Let us at this special time think how we can help the families of those who are not only dedicated to defending us but to preserving peace all over the world.

7.19 p.m.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, with not long to think about it, the only naval ballad I can recite which might possibly match that of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, is as follows: The boatswain we had was apparently mad For he sat on the after rail And he fired salutes with the commodore's boots In the teeth of a roaring gale". I often feel like that boatswain. However, less so tonight than usual: I am going to be a great deal more friendly to the Government.

In the past few weeks, there have been a number of most interesting shifts: the defence Ministers in Vienna, St. Malo and ministerial statements and remarks all seem to be signifying a change of course which I believe will be greatly to the benefit of the British people. Here at last is the foreign policy which we had been told would lead the Strategic Defence Review but did not; and it has now become visible.

What did emerge in that and in the Strategic Defence Review was a useful piece of housekeeping. The great question has been: will the European members of NATO find their voice in time to prevent NATO becoming a heedless extension of US power around the world, expensive to its members and threatening to everyone else? Now it looks as though the answer may, after all, be yes. We appear finally to have realised that we cannot keep "defence" facing in one direction while our other interests and activities face in another. Our "security" involves the whole comprehensive gamut of our external affairs, and, in a globalising world, that means their economic, environmental, cultural and legal dimensions as well as the purely military.

As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, reminded the House only yesterday, the Prime Minister called at the North Atlantic Assembly last month in Edinburgh for, a more effective Europe in foreign policy and security", and, a European decision-making capacity and command structure". On 3rd December the Foreign Secretary said in the Commons—I am sorry if I am robbing my noble friend Lord Gilbert of all the punchlines he was going to give: they are very good ones and I am sure he will not grudge me them: We are exploring how we can make decisions within the common foreign and security policy more effective, and more rapid, and how we can ensure that there is a better transmission between the security policy decided by the Foreign Ministers of the EU and the defence policy that we implement through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/98; col. 1083.] Note here the use of the word "decide" for what the EU Foreign Ministers do and the word "implement" for what happens in NATO. That is right. For us Europeans, this language should be seen as a most welcome advance.

A question which should be addressed now is whether the United States retains its present veto over the use of NATO equipment of American origin, or whether the rest of us will have to develop our own surveillance systems, and so on. It is interesting and reassuring that so much effort is now going into the creation of a proper European defence industry through the joint agencies of the European Union and the WEU. It will have the advantage of being able to be no larger and no stronger than is required by actual events and dispositions.

Another task facing us Europeans is to define in advance what is to be the relationship between an active European force, engaged in something the European governments judge to be a European interest—under the UN and under international law—and a US-NATO component which may be inactive because the issue in question does not touch American interests. How are those relationships being envisaged? In such cases, we must be sure that the US does not just provide cruise missiles while the Europeans fill the body bags.

I turn now to relations with Russia. In June last year my noble friend Lady Symons was emphatic, in a debate I initiated on NATO and the Russian Federation, that during the course of the negotiations for the Founding Act on mutual relations the two sides agreed that it should take the form of a solemn commitment, made at the highest level, similar to the Helsinki Final Act. She went on to say: anxieties in Russia about NATO … are based on a profound misunderstanding of the character and intentions of the alliance, which are strictly defensive. The best way to achieve a thoroughgoing and lasting change in perception is to … find a way of involving Russia in discussion of European issues that corresponds to her legitimate security interests".—[Official Report, 23/6/97; col. 1456.] How strongly we may all endorse that! There has been since then the matter I raised last June of the conditions Senator Helms imposed on the Clinton administration as his price for Senate approval of NATO enlargement, conditions which were in many ways incompatible with the Founding Act—specifically, his insistence on, "a fire-break" between NATO and the Russian Federation. NATO would inform Russia of its decisions, not discuss them in advance. The Government's view of the Helms' conditions was that they were—I quote again my noble friend Lady Symons— of course an internal matter for the United States", and that, The new strategic concept will take account of NATO's new co-operative relationships with Russia".—[Official Report, 19/6/98; cols. 1849–50.] It was presumably on the basis of this expectation, and on a perhaps too traditional view of military affairs, and on the assumption that the NATO of the future would be little different from the NATO of recent years, that the Strategic Defence Review took place. But since then the US administration has been trying to persuade NATO to accept all the Helms' conditions, which are hirsute, into the revised NATO strategic concept. What we now see, and what the Government, I believe and hope, have now seen, is that the terms of the new strategic concept the US administration has been proposing for NATO are incompatible not only with the Founding Act—the part about not discussing the concept with the Russians until it is finalised, when we will brief them on it—but also with international law, with the United Nations Charter and with any common foreign and security policy the European Union is likely to decide on. It would even intrude into our own responsibility for the level we may choose for our defence budget.

The doctrine behind the Helms' conditions, now embodied in the US strategic concept proposals, is simply unsustainable. Not many governments in the rest of the world believe US hegemony would make for a just world system, let alone an efficient or enjoyable one. Naturally, the American people, when asked, do not wish to rule the world. Those among us who would really rather like an American-run world have to recognise that is not actually an available future. In the debate on the Queen's Speech, I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, mention "asymmetrical warfare" and the dangers we all face from our "vulnerability to information warfare". This is the future, and it is incompatible with any particular country running the world.

I have been raising both these points for some time, in the House and in correspondence, but parliamentary audibility, as all Members of this House know, is not very easy. We could, the Government believe, defend against this kind of thing. It is still said that the Ministry of Defence has never been hacked into, as if one would know. For commercial firms, presumably even the major utilities, it is a commercial matter, and so on. The Pentagon now, for reasons of cost, buys its electronics off the shelf, and so increasingly do we. Worst case analysis says, "You do not know if there is anything else, equivalent to the millennium bug, in what they have sold you. You cannot know"—and worst case analysis is what we pay officials in our Ministry of Defence to do. When some expensive piece of equipment blows up on launching—for example, the 1 billion dollar Mercury Sigint spacecraft that exploded on 12th August—we cannot know that some unfriendly hand was not in it.

To say that is far from saying that it was. It is just that when computer-run equipment fails, it is usually impossible to establish any exact cause or identify any guilty party within the kind of period that makes military sense.

Meanwhile, the relatively modest millennium bug approaches, and one of the US Federal Communications Commissioners says: We're are definitely past the period of where you're are going to solve the problem. We're into mitigation". At the same time, the technological disconnect between the US and its European allies continues to widen, and sophisticated communications between our militaries becomes increasingly almost impossible.

I would like to think that somewhere, and some time soon, imaginative and informed thought will be given to considering the effect of electronic war on the future of warfare itself as an institution. It has now got about as far as nuclear weapons had when imaginative and informed thought was first given to the effect of nuclear war.

The essence of the dilemma is that without communications you can do nothing, from ordering more jam to airlifting an army, and communications now are electronic: the old modes have been stood down. Now add to this that their disruption is easy, including undetectable disruption. The Pentagon has hired hackers for both external and internal exercises and has detected a great many disruptions, and failed to detect many more. Very, very, few were identified. I have raised all this before. But the fact is that your armed forces are subject to the undetectable disruption and corruption of their communications. The equipment needed to do this is small and cheap and it is made in low wage countries, where the motives and the opportunities exist for political hatred of us.

Of course the danger is the same with weapons of mass destruction: the equipment goes in a suitcase, and such suitcases have been found. This fact has led to the elephants of NATO and of the US armed forces elsewhere in the world chasing the flies of international terrorism.

To the uninformed, it often seems as though all these dangers and counter-measures are simply more reasons to get ahead with abolishing the institution of war. The informed, unfortunately, largely live by its perpetuation.

This makes me say, let us get beyond the division of humanity into the "Don't know but do cares" and the "Do know but have my job to think abouts". That is difficult. We have to recognise that the arms industry is the only one in the world which is devoted to producing the means to destroy value. A job is good, the goods created by a job are good, and the jobs created by a job are good. But the products of the arms industry create no jobs and no value even when they are not used. When they are used they destroy jobs, value, values and life with blind efficacity. Solving crises before they turn violent should be our first purpose, and that means a far greater concern for justice and for the relief of oppression, which means the rule of law.

It would be good if just as the Prime Minister declares "Education! education! education!" in domestic affairs, so in foreign affairs he would declare "Justice! justice! justice!"

7.32 p.m.

Lord Clifford of Chudleigh

My Lords, I am delighted to be one of many to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, on his maiden speech today. It is a privilege to see my name alongside that of such a knowledgeable military historian as the noble and gallant Lord, Field-Marshal Lord Carver, for whom I acted as ADC when he was Chief of the Defence Staff. For his military genius the noble and gallant Lord was correctly awarded a life peerage. For my part, though I served only 10 years for Queen and country, I inherited one. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, presumed that anyway!

Like so many noble Lords in this House, and most in Her Majesty's Armed Forces, one has read the paper, Modern Forces for the Modern World: A Territorial Army for the Future. The text prompted telephone calls and correspondence with those volunteers within the T&AVR units, and with a recently retired general in my regiment. I served with him in Ulster in 1972. He was a captain and I a mere subaltern. Suddenly, I feel my age.

The Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Roger Wheeler, wrote a letter on 9th November 1998 which stated, The Defence Review highlighted an increased emphasis on supporting and sustaining expeditionary operations". It referred to a Territorial Army which will be, part of our deployable order of battle". Will the Minister help to clarify a statement which was reported to have been made by the Secretary of State for Defence which implied that the TA was not required for NATO or home defence purposes? I quote General Wheeler again, The Territorial Army is a key part of our country's military capability; we must all ensure that it goes from strength to strength". Perhaps he could explain why infantry in western Wessex is being reduced from two-and-a-half battalions to one battalion spread over five counties.

This reduction has substantial implications. First, it reduces the base for reflation of the Army in a time of future crisis, which undoubtedly will occur at some time. Secondly, it weakens the already weak link between the services and the civilian population. Thirdly, it reduces the amount of back up support available to the Regular Army in time of need; for example, in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, where substantial numbers of the TA have already been serving. Fourthly, it drastically reduces the amount of manpower available to assist in bringing military aid to civilian community tasks—for example, in a time of major flood. Fifthly, it greatly reduces the opportunity for those who wish to render voluntary services to their country. Sixthly, it minimises the reinforcements available to the Regular Army in times of future conflict.

It is true that a few elements of the Territorial Army are being increased. An example is the medical services of which we have heard much already this evening. However, as these are already under strength and are having difficulty in attracting doctors, it is unlikely that the proposed increase will have much impact.

Once again I stretched out my hand for A Territorial Army for the Future. It stated, Infantry, yeomanry and supporting combat services are no longer needed to the same degree and will be reduced". Perhaps no one showed that sentence to the Chief of the General Staff. I repeat that this reduction has substantial implications. I believe that the bent towards computerised warfare—a desire prompted by our closest ally, the United States—has led those in the highest echelons in the Ministry of Defence to try to match that mega power weapon for weapon, all at the expense of the soldier.

I quote from a senior military commander, recently involved in Bosnia, who states, the Territorial Army cutbacks, especially those in the infantry are the most dangerous for the future defence of the United Kingdom in that in any future war or peace support operation, volume is needed". That can be provided only by a strong reserve.

That same officer, a general of international note, made another remark which contradicts the principles, the idea supposedly proposed by the Secretary of State for Defence in relation to NATO: It is nonsense to say that because the Home Defence and NATO roles have disappeared we can get rid of the Home Defence and NATO roled battalions. It was the Conservative Party who insisted on mission orienting the Territorial Army, against Ministry of Defence advice. It takes 30 Territorial Army soldiers (a platoon) to keep the Regular Army supplied with one man in the front line for a year. Statistics being currently quoted are flawed as they do not count the men who transfer from the Territorial Army for a three year engagement [in the Regular Army]". NATO has been mentioned on several occasions. We are aware that European countries, as well as the United States, are our partners in NATO. However, it should be remembered that our Common Market partners made no reference to common security or defence until 1992, when it was mentioned in Article 17 of the Maastricht Treaty. That was amended by the Amsterdam Treaty. There it was stated that the common (European) defence and security policy was to include all questions relating to the security of the Union—let us remember that early in the next century it will be a matter of five plus one—including the framing of a common defence policy which might lead to a common defence force, should the Euro-Council so decide.

Bearing that last statement in mind, our position in NATO underlines the vital role of support troops such as the Territorial Army. Article 18 of the Maastricht Treaty states that at international conferences where not all member states take part, those who do shall uphold the Common Position". Until recently we could speak as the United Kingdom. I question that sovereign solidarity now, and I question the Ministry of Defence's existence post-2004.

How many of us can remember the opportunity—or was it enforcement?—of being in the Cadet Corps at school? Today it is the Territorial Army that makes possible such training, such as understanding of respect for rank, cleanliness and good order. It is the Territorial Army that is the "recruiting sergeant", that encourages youth to test themselves alongside their elders and contemporaries in difficult, awkward, unusual situations, so that, when called upon to assist in military aid to the civilian community (floods, ambulance strikes, rescues at sea) they can work as a team, complementary to one another, to the benefit of others.

It would cost the nation £3 million to bring the TA to the required level of 45,000 supporting troops. Yet I am told that we are spending £250 million to refit a naval frigate which is destined to be scrapped in two years' time. As Rudyard Kipling said, It's 'Tommy this' and 'Tommy that' and 'kick him out, the brute'. But it's 'Hero of the country' When the guns begin to shoot Only prepared people can provide peace.

7.44 p.m.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, I am glad that the cadets have not suffered in the review. Apart from the benefits that they give to their own members, they provide a very valuable, indeed essential, bridge to the community for recruiting for the Regular Army. But more recently they have been providing another service. By means of the youth and community project, they have been offering to disaffected youth discovery days and weekly attachments to try out and see whether they enjoy all the sports that the cadets can offer. Indeed, some detachments have been intentionally formed in distressed areas in order to provide the opportunity for young people to attain the motivation and occupation to keep them out of trouble.

The cadets have been signally successful and have so far been prepared to fund the cost themselves or out of funds from charitable organisations. If the cadets are to be more widely used as a social medicine as much as any source for Army recruits, surely that service to the public order should be on contract to the civilian sector budget and not a total charge on the defence budget.

The cadets rely heavily on the TA for training aid and administration, as well as for their drill halls. With centres closed, who will give them that support in the future? If it is to be the Regular Army, what an expense that will be. For example, in my own home town of Guisborough, the Territorial Army is to be closed down. It serves some seven cadet units, yet the TA centre does not currently have, and has not for some years had, any permanent staff. That TA centre also provides a focus for many social benefits, as a function location and a venue for charity work. People in the area are extremely upset that it is to close.

Likewise, the Territorial Army has been helping society at a higher age group. The TA has drill halls and has trained staff available. They are valuable resources which at many times of the week are inadequately used. The TA is hoping to teach unemployed no-hopers many skills such as vehicle maintenance and IT, and to encourage and help them to return to the labour market. These are the youngsters who otherwise may cause nothing but pain and trouble to the community, and who have been referred to as a "ticking time-bomb".

I could single out the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, who are pioneering on their own initiative a scheme to assist disaffected youth. They run one to five day courses for unmotivated and "dropped out" 16 to 24 year-olds, many with criminal records, where they are instructed at drill halls and taught life skills. The Army manages to motivate them, and several may join the Army instead of drifting into crime. Funds come from various trusts, including the Prince's Trust, and involves the Gateway and the New Deal. But the cost ensures that it is run on only a small scale. What a shame it would be if the scheme should take off just as drill halls were sold to be pulled down and redeveloped. They would be the ideal sites for courses to be run and the instructors could be both regular and territorial soldiers. Indeed, it would be one of the greatest peacetime contributions to the country that the TA could make, but it would be quite wrong and just would not happen unless the cost was borne by a Vote other than the defence budget. Yet the cost of the use of drill halls to train young tearaways to become good citizens would be amply justified by the reduction in the cost of potential crime.

The MoD has a couple of officers concerned with the youth initiative, but the potential success is too valuable to be limited by the cost to the defence budget, and the Home Office should be buying the services from the military. Further thoughts might lead to assistance with community service, prisoner training, assisting with probation and so forth. The military could make a huge contribution against crime and it would be cost-effective. But again, the help should not fall on the defence budget, or the military would naturally decline to provide it.

The military corrective training centre, or glasshouse, is another area that could be contracted out for civilian use. Built to a high specification, it is, unlike the prisons, designed to raise spirits. Perhaps as a result, the rate of re-offending is only 12 per cent. as opposed to 50 per cent. in civilian prisons. The training not only deters re-offending, but many military inmates go on to become NCOs. It should be said that most military inmates are not violent or vicious disturbed criminals, as are many inmates in civilian prisons. But likewise, there are many in civilian prisons who are not vicious or disturbed and who would benefit from such a regime rather than being in overcrowded cells or being abused in ordinary prisons. The staff of the MCTC are highly trained and proven leaders, never below the rank of sergeant.

Surely it would be worth considering sending those civilian prisoners who might be thought able to benefit from it to the MCTC. The idea could be pursued, with prisons run on army lines, entirely devoted to civilian tearaways, with military or ex-military staff, but financed by the Home Office. These would not be boot camps but training camps from which inmates could emerge as responsible members of society.

The training is military, demanding and concentrated, but it is also interesting, and soldiers return to their units well motivated. Civilian prisoners might equally be motivated. It is, of course, expensive, but the cost must be compared with the cost that would be incurred if the offender were, without that training, to become one of the 50 per cent. who re-offend having come out of an ordinary prison, rather than one of the 12 per cent. who received the better training. If suitable offenders were to be directed to the MCTC or a civilian equivalent run by these trained leaders, their offending rate might be drastically reduced.

There should be no reason why the military should not be able to contract out their expertise and any spare capacity to the civilian market. With that funding, the military could budget for extra staff and would therefore not be able to use the argument that they were already overstretched. The services would gain from having a larger pool of staff to mature and rotate. This would be in accordance with the wish of the Government that all departments should adopt a more entrepreneurial attitude.

Bands are also to be drastically reduced. That is a great shame. Bands are a very important part of public relations, and the interface of the Army with the public will be greatly reduced.

An interesting point in the review is that the TA establishment of medics should be increased. In my TAVRA we anticipate that it will be very difficult to achieve the required strength. When doctors attend camp it interferes dramatically with their system of appointments, and hospitals are loath to let them go. We do not expect that our establishment will be reached for some years, if ever. It may well be that if civilian medics are required for emergencies, as they will be, some system other than through the TA will have to be found.

On a more direct defence matter, I was very concerned to read in a brief that top Chinese General Mi Zhenyu told the Chinese two years ago: We quietly nurse our sense of vengeance. We must conceal our abilities and bide our time". We have lived through the aggressive aspirations of the Germans twice and those of the Russians, the Japanese and now the Iraqis. It seems that China may well be the next to threaten world peace. They are powered by a strong feeling of wounded nationalism, with the xenophobic conviction that they are the superior race and that their grievances have not been avenged. China already has the largest army in the world and, having studied the Gulf War, has spent billions on military equipment from Russia alone in the past two years. I read that China admits that it plans to occupy islands almost as far south as Singapore. Vietnam and the Philippines are no match for China's 9,000 tanks, and they know it. China is already using its fire-power, as in 1988 when it sank three Vietnamese ships, and in 1994 when it warned off a US naval force. I sincerely hope that my brief is unduly alarmist and untrue; but let us cultivate friendship with China and ensure that it does not feel any further loss of face. However justified it may be, let us not do a Pinochet with the next Chinese leader to visit the country.

But let us be fully aware that history could repeat itself and that the day may come when there will be a showdown and the whole of the Far East could flare up into warfare. Whether this country and the US would be sucked into any such conflict, I do not know, but one thing that is sure is that we must maintain the military capability to respond in whatever way the political decision may be taken. Thankfully, this country keeps up its technological expertise, but only time will tell whether we shall rue the day when we disbanded so many reserves from our Territorial Army. Napoleon said: When China awakes let the world tremble". China is waking.

7.54 p.m.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, on his fine maiden speech and by broadly supporting the SDR. I had hoped that I could claim to be the most junior military person present, having managed the rank of lieutenant, having turned down a captaincy in the TA because it would have meant leaving a light aid detachment. However, I am informed by my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire that he only managed to reach the rank of sergeant-major in a CCF, so I outrank him.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, perhaps I may cap that by saying that I only reached the rank of volunteer sub-lieutenant in the Navy.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, I note the point that the noble Lord puts forward. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I shall focus on the issue of the TA, as many noble Lords have done. It is a subject that I raised in the debate on the gracious Speech and one to which I should like to return.

An aspect that surprises me about many of the speeches about the TA by Regular Army officers is the attitude that the TA should be the first to be considered when there are to be cuts, as if the TA, rather than the Regular Army, could somehow absorb the cuts. This is a problematic area and shows the inherent divide between the Regular Army and the Territorial Army, which is well exampled in the attitudes of regular soldiers and territorial soldiers to each other. I believe that healing that rift is very important for any future role that the TA will undertake within the Regular Army.

The cutting of the TA will have a number of devastating impacts. Although I realise that the cuts are less severe than they might have been, one of the problems that they will cause will be a loss of the skill base within the Territorial Army. A major problem with closing Territorial Army bases and reducing the number of establishments is that a number of posts will disappear. Many territorial soldiers will be unable to move from one position to another and gain experience in different units. I speak as a member of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and as someone who has seen the loss in the skill base at first hand. It is difficult to build up the required number of courses on the limited man training days available, especially when one has to put people on courses which will last a number of weeks but, because of the limited man training days, they cannot do those courses and meet their camp commitments.

The second impact will be on the link to the local community. I was pleased that in the previous Session the Minister declared that the link with the ACF would not be affected by the cuts. I was gratified that the ACF, which has an important role, especially in recruitment, was to be saved and that drill halls associated with it would be preserved. However, if the link with the community is broken in too many areas there will be a direct impact on the recruitment ability of the Regular Army. For many TA soldiers, especially the younger ones, the TA is their first brush with military life and quite a number go on to the Regular Army.

The required change in the attitude of the Regular Army to the TA will also be reflected in the position of the regular Army after the SDR. The TA will have a far more important role because so many posts are left unfilled in the Regular Army. The role of the territorials as a base for large numbers of troops can be changed by way of the terms of service accepted by territorial soldiers. Rather than train for a need that no longer exists among units that will never go to war, the Territorial Army can focus far more on training individuals to undertake short-term postings within Regular Army units.

There is a great deal of sentimental attachment to the idea of the Territorial Army having a regimental basis. I understand that that provides a sense of purpose and history to members of the Territorial Army. However, having visited officers' messes to attend Territorial Army regimental dinners, a good indication of the history of the particular unit can be seen from the amount of silver on display. A large amount of silver usually indicates that many units have been amalgamated.

To express a personal view and not that of my party, I hope that the regimental system can be taken out of the Territorial Army. This will cause a great deal of consternation. However, it is extremely important that the individual soldier has a purpose in joining the Territorial Army. What is important is not the maintenance of regiments that may have had a glorious history although little impact on the individual soldier, but the individual unit and the training of the individual soldier. One of the major difficulties of retention of Territorial Army soldiers is that after a period of time they realise it is very unlikely that they will ever have the ability to serve in an operational capacity. That is one of the major difficulties of retention in the Territorial Army.

If members of the Territorial Army could be given a greater sense of purpose or role in the Regular Army it would have two effects. First, it would mean better retention among the Territorial Army. Secondly, it could also prevent the overstretch that often occurs within the Regular Army.

One area that has been focused on by many noble Lords is the medical service. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to the frightening position in which the DMS finds itself. I hope that the 2,000 in posts in the new formation of the Territorial Army will be new posts. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, has indicated that they are not new posts. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate that they are real new posts. One of the major problems faced by the medical services in the past is that their use has been underestimated. For example, thankfully we did not need the medical services in the Falklands War or in the Gulf War. I have some personal experience because my brother-in-law was in the RAMC during the Gulf War. The picture he painted when he returned was that the Territorial Army provided the backbone to the medical service. Without the Territorial Army is there a backbone to the medical service? Because it has not been needed so far does not mean that in a future conflict it will not be needed.

We come to another issue relating to the Reserve Forces Act which was touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox; namely, the fear that the NHS and health trusts will place obstacles in the path of surgeons in particular and anaesthetists in training with the medical corps. Bearing in mind that that Act came into force some time ago, can the Minister give an indication whether the NHS or health trusts have imposed conditions? If so, it may cause real difficulties. I do not believe that it would be for any reason other than that the health trusts themselves were overworked and recognised the value of their surgeons.

Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, with remarkable tenacity, made reference to nuclear weapons. The SDR sets out the need for a deterrent. We on these Benches support that. The explosive force of the deterrent has been reduced by 70 per cent. Can the Minister tell the House whether at some future point Britain's arsenal will be reduced unilaterally as a positive indication of disarmament? It may also have significant cost implications. If the Russians and Americans are considering a reduction in their nuclear deterrents due to cost implications this must have implications for our nuclear weapons.

Another issue that has been raised is the provision of aircraft carriers. In view of the agreement that has been concluded between France and Britain is it possible for us to share our carrier fleet with the French? I realise that this may be a new concept. One of the major problems with the carrier fleet is that if we have two on line at any one time we will probably require three carriers in case one is in dry dock at any particular time. Is there any possibility of linking up with the French rather than having the duplication that exists at the moment?

Many noble Lords have made reference to the WEU and in particular the question of greater co-operation. We on these Benches support greater emphasis on the WEU rather than on NATO. It will be extremely difficult for us to act in countries like Bosnia if we must rely on the Americans who are not prepared to put troops on the ground. I have witnessed the interaction of the troops of many nations. Recently I was an observer at the Bosnian elections and had the pleasure of witnessing a visit by large number of SFOR troops to my polling station as a grenade had been reported there.

I was disappointed that the SDR made little mention of future warfare. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised the issue of cyber warfare. The SDR refers to it as information warfare. Given the terror that the millennium bug is creating at the moment, it would be unfortunate if little work was being done to counter that threat. Can the Minister give any indication as to what preparations the MoD is making in this area of warfare, if any?

I congratulate the Government and the Army on the recent declaration of zero tolerance as regards racial discrimination. Such a statement was given very recently and it is a massive step forward. I believe that the success of the SDR will be seen quite soon, not by the Army but by a very simple indicator; namely, whether people who join the Army see it as a valuable and attractive career for the future.

8.10 p.m.

Lord Burnham

My Lords, I cannot resist asking the noble Lord, Lord Redesedale, that if we are to share an aircraft carrier with the French, who is going to steer it? Your Lordships have been asked today to, "take note of' the review. In another place six weeks ago MPs were asked to, "approve the conclusions" of the review. I wonder whether that variation in wording is because of the financial implications, which remain ultra vires for your Lordships because there is no doubt that money and the Treasury have had a large part to play. Nevertheless, I am sure that there is general approval for the large amount of work that has gone into the review and also approval for the degree of consultation referred to by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, which took place before the review was published. I am one of those who complained consistently of the delay in getting it out. It took an extraordinarily long time. The amount of detail may excuse that delay.

I underline that we on these Benches support the bi-partisan approach to a defence policy, for which the Minister asked. I hope that we shall be able to help and that he will take all that is said in the spirit that we are trying to help. It is only as regards the Territorial Army where we may be said to have a fundamental disagreement. My noble friend Lord Cope has clearly laid down as regards one area of the country what seems to be an extraordinary and impractical reorganisation. Your Lordships have discussed the TA at some length. I ask the noble Lord whether adequate attention has been given to its role as a recruitment centre for the Regular Army; as a supplier of reserves and as a centre for social activity in many parts of the country where such a role is urgently needed. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, has pointed out the relationship between the regular and cadet forces. I believe that the Territorial Army has much the same role.

It is the convention of your Lordships' House that only the succeeding speaker should pay tribute to a maiden speaker. Almost all of your Lordships ignored that and I intend to do the same. We have had the benefit of the advice of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent. He is the most recently retired soldier. He is very welcome as a partial begetter of the SDR itself. We have had the benefit of hearing from three noble and gallant Lords today. I am only sorry that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, was not here. I know that he deeply regrets that he was unable to speak and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. I regret that they have been unable to give us a nap hand. I would like to express my personal regret that, following the sad death of Lord Fieldhouse, there is not in this House a recently retired and senior naval officer to advise your Lordships on naval affairs.

In listening to all three noble and gallant Lords today, it has been interesting to note that all three are satisfied with the Government's actions as regards the Territorial Army. That has been reflected in the Regular Army itself. I wonder whether, now that many regular soldiers have had the opportunity of working with territorials, particularly in Bosnia, that they may feel that the Territorial Army has a more important role to fill in its current form than had been previously thought.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, spoke about the company as being possibly the minimum size of a desirable unit for the territorials. I support that. My noble friend Lord Cope spoke about platoons and almost single guns. The Territorial Army must be given the benefit not only in the accounts of working together if it is to be able to act as a formed unit.

Throughout the review we have been told that it is foreign policy based and I accept that. The frontiers of foreign policy are continually moving. Even so, some of the ideas of 1997 and the early part of this year have radically altered. The recent St. Malo concordat, in which the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State were deeply involved, may well bring about a change in what is required. It may cause those responsible to reflect. Here I note that the love-in in St. Malo is countered by the demands of Aero Spatiale that it should have 50 per cent. of the joint company, which has been set up with British Aerospace and the Germans. Life is not easy for any defence or trade and industry Minister. I hope that when the noble Lord winds up he will be able to bring your Lordships up-to-date on all these matters because there is so much that has changed.

In welcoming the SDR, the House of Commons Defence Committee has been fairly critical of some aspects. In its response to the committee the Government have in fact disagreed with the concern expressed that Russia still poses a potential military problem. Let us hope that they are right. In the immediate future that would seem to be undoubtedly the case, but it would be unwise to discard the possible danger entirely. Thus, long-term procurement should be based on a possibility that things may go wrong again. Equally, too much reliance should not be put on the conviction that never again will there be trouble in the Ukraine or Kazakhstan. There must be a significant danger that the desperate economic situation in Russia and the former countries of the Soviet Union, may bring about a desperate political reaction. We have to watch not only the states of the former Soviet Union, but many countries with equal "rogue" tendencies.

We still do not appear to have had a sufficiently informative exposition of the foreign baseline although it is interesting to note that by approving the conclusions of the SDR, honourable Members in another place have given the Prime Minister carte blanche to conduct a foreign policy which would have been the envy of Lord Palmerston.

Apart from foreign policy, there remains a conviction that the Ministry of Defence is still finding great difficulty in keeping its books straight. The recently published Performance Report of the Ministry of Defence for 1997–98 notes the criticisms of the Commons Public Accounts Committee in respect of the MoD accounts for 1996–7. Some consolation is given, but the audit account for the following year still shows things going wrong in 1997–98, with a fairly notable deficit. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who is not in his place, has tabled a Question with regard to the £34.6 million written off on an aborted MoD computer project. I hoped that the House might have had the reply by today so that we might comment on it. That has not been possible. We await it with interest.

The Minister was reassuring in his speech about the smart procurement initiative. His comments on the development of integrated project teams and a more logical system of spare parts holdings must be welcomed. I wonder whether he can make any comment on something I have been told that despite the idea that everyone should be working together, the RAF is still buying its own vehicles.

On procurement, the layout of Abbey Wood, where so much of this is carried out, still presents problems both physical and in terms of the methods adopted. I hope that the Government will look carefully at the way in which personnel are moved backwards and forwards in particular between London and Abbey Wood. Is any consideration to be given to the decision not to construct No. 6 building at Abbey Wood which would solve many of the problems and enable more people to work together? Having said that, the decision to make the management of logistics a more efficient business is most welcome.

The Minister referred to the number of times I have asked about aircraft carriers. I have indeed done so—almost as many times as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has asked about nuclear disarmament. However, in the summer the Minister gave your Lordships the assurance that the two aircraft carriers would be built rather than that we "intend to" build them. That assurance was more categoric than anything said in the SDR. It is not doubted by me or any noble Lord here, but we and colleagues in another place have heard many rumours which have cast doubts on the Government's resolution. For that reason I am more than grateful for the reassurances that the Minister has given the House today, with evidence of concrete progress—even if it is concrete only in terms of pieces of paper.

I ask him further to confirm that the design delivery date is still 2012. Advertisements for tenders for the refit of existing carriers seem to suggest that the conunissioning of the new ships might be put off until 2022. The building of the aircraft carriers is crucial to the success of the SDR. Long discussions on whether the air assault force which has been planned should be land or sea based—I believe that argument to be critical to the whole of the Government's foreign defence policy—can only have been resolved in favour of a sea-based defence force which can only be maintained by the building of the new carriers.

The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that it was essential that we should go to the crisis. We cannot go to the crisis unless we have equipment in which to do so. Even by 2012 the existing carriers will be well beyond their sell-by date. In any case, they are much too small.

There remains the question of what aircraft to put on the new carriers. I ask the Minister for any comment he cares to make. I am advised that it is unlikely to be the Eurofighter although it could be used in an emergency. There are major problems with the airframe if Eurofighter is to be used for sea-borne take-offs and landings, and the deck of the carrier would probably need to be strengthened.

It seems that the SDR figure of 232 Eurofighters to be built is adequate for foreseeable needs provided that the estimated 80 per cent. in service at any one time can he maintained. It is important from the point of view of the international construction industry that numbers should not be reduced and that a regular programme of building should be maintained. Not only must the aircraft be European, we must have European missiles to put on them. Any difficulties which in an unfortunate set of circumstances might cause the Americans to cause trouble with their export licences would most seriously damage the ability of Europe to maintain an independent defence system.

The Minister was asked in another place yesterday whether Eurofighter was on target for delivery starting in 2002 given the estimated overspend in the air equipment budget of £1 billion. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, to comment on the figure and to state whether it will have any effect on the delivery of the Eurofighter.

As I mentioned in the debate on the gracious Speech, the European countries are the allies and not the clients of the United States. Undoubtedly and properly Her Majesty's Government have stood behind the United States, but they should not be expected to do so unquestioningly—even if that is the only way one can obtain equipment.

Another area where there are potential problems is the supply of transport aircraft. Here I hope that Her Majesty's Government will succeed in getting the German Government totally on side with regard to the production of the FLA. The C130J is an excellent machine, but it is too small and one cannot put a Warrior on it. The FLA is an ideal size and can carry anything up to a small battle tank or an Apache helicopter. All these are details of equipment. In general we cannot criticise the thrust of the SDR. However, the SDR seems not to have given sufficient attention to recruitment, overstretch and retention although the Government's intentions are impeccable. We are looking for a small increase in numbers. But will the money be available for them before the designated year of 2004? How are those people to be obtained? I do not believe that equal opportunities legislation, desirable as it is, will do much good in this field. The Government will have to do more in planning and marketing for long-term career opportunities for servicemen and a satisfactory lifestyle for their wives and families if we are to recruit and keep the servicemen we need.

However, with the exception of the plans for the TA, we welcome the review. We take note of it. Your Lordships may and almost certainly will come back to it in the near future. However, I hope that as regards all the fundamental points the Government may be able to carry out their policy with determination and expedition.

8.26 p.m.

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, the first and very agreeable task I have is to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent of Coleshill, on his maiden speech. I am a little aggrieved with the noble and gallant Lord. It has taken him two years to make his maiden speech in this House, and during that time we have had quite a lot of defence debates. I hope that he does not intend to go AWOL in any future defence debates now that he has made his maiden speech. I cannot understand why the noble and gallant Lord suggests that making a maiden speech in this House was particularly intimidating. Having done so myself, I can tell the noble and gallant Lord that it is nothing like as intimidating as having to follow three field marshals, one after the other, as a Minister. We were all delighted to hear the noble and gallant Lord. I am particularly gratified at the agreeable remarks he made about the Strategic Defence Review. Needless to say, I share with him a view of the importance of the nuclear deterrent. I shall come to that in a moment in response to some remarks by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver.

However, I very much agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent of Coleshill, on the importance of NATO, and in particular that it has kept the United States constructively engaged in the affairs of Europe, and, coincidentally, in other parts of the world. I fully understand his concerns—we heard them echoed around the House by many noble Lords—about the degree of overstretch which to some extent will still exist in the Army even after we have recruited up to 3,000 more men and women. I entirely accept what he says about the Army being more heavily committed relative to its total strength than at any time since the 1940s.

The noble and gallant Lord also made the point that the Territorial Army needs more administrative support than is at present available. I am sure my right honourable friend in another place will take careful note of what the noble and gallant Lord had to say on that.

There were so many detailed contributions that it would be impossible for me to attempt to reply to them in the degree of detail that they deserve. I think in particular, but by no means exclusively, of the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. They spoke in great detail. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for sending me a copy of the remarks she intended to make. I received it only a few hours ago and was horrified to think how on earth I was going to reply. I hope that she and other noble Lords will accept that if I cannot reply to detailed points I shall deal with them in correspondence.

I have received a note from the Box concerning a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, about 2,000 posts in the medical services. I am informed that the 2,000 represents an increase over the existing establishment. However, we are double-hatting 476 bandsmen to augment the medical services. Those bandsmen will perform non-specialist medical roles and the remaining 1,500 will have to be recruited separately, together with the 1,000 or so who are needed where the service is under strength.

Many references were made to the Territorial Army. The Government recognise the concern felt about the future and importance of the Territorial Army. At the risk of repeating myself, I must say again what I said in our previous debate on the TA. The determination of the required strength was made on operational grounds. That came out at about 25,000 men. We then added about another 6,500 men to assure ourselves that we would be able to produce 25,000 whenever necessary. We increased that 31,500 to the present total by a series of add-ons as a result of representations made to us during the consultation period. We wished to ensure that we had as wide a footprint as possible and that the administrative arrangements were as sensible as possible, including arrangements for nuclear, biological and chemical units. So we did listen and considerably expanded the operational requirement of the TA over and above that which was universally agreed by the service chiefs to be necessary.

Everything over and above the figure of 31,500 is designed to meet the points made about footprints and aid to the civil power which your Lordships have raised today. I realise that we have not satisfied all your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, spoke in great detail about the problems relating to the Territorial Army in Bristol and surrounding counties. Other noble Lords made similar points. On a previous occasion, points were made about North and South Wales and having a single headquarters covering the whole of Wales. We had to try to compromise between getting as wide a footprint as possible and stretching units very thinly. We could have had the units more condensed and of a larger size, but we would have had to sacrifice the degree of footprint which we sought to achieve, and have achieved, over the United Kingdom as a whole.

My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney asked about the absence from the SDR of anything about nuclear disarmament. As I have said previously at this Dispatch Box, I can assure him that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that we would like a world without nuclear weapons. I have no hesitation in standing at the Dispatch Box and saying that. When we are likely to see it is another matter, but the Government have placed no obstacles in the path of future nuclear disarmament.

At one time I thought it was somewhat improbable to find the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, as a bedfellow of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney in relation to nuclear matters. The noble and gallant Lord invited me to read a recent publication from the Council of Arms Control, of which I am correctly identified as a trustee. I regret to say that I have not found time to read that publication. However, I have had time to read the publication CND Today, the summer edition of 1997 of which contains a blurred picture of the noble and gallant Lord, who is described as an unlikely ally in the fight against Trident. The interesting thing is that the noble and gallant Lord, who I hope is correctly quoted in the document, says, I have never seen"— "never" is the word— any point in this country having its own nuclear weapons system at all". Clearly, the noble and gallant Lord, as he successfully made his way up the slippery pole of advancement in Her Majesty's Army, succeeded in persuading his superior officers and successive Ministers that he was a fellow very worthy of advancement while not concealing from them that he had no interest whatever in the fundamental policy of NATO. I have some news for the noble and gallant Lord—

Lord Carver

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way and hope that he does not mind my correcting him. It has never been a fundamental policy of NATO that this country should have its own nuclear weapon.

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, it has been the fundamental policy of NATO, as the noble and gallant Lord would accept, that the nuclear deterrent was the basis on which NATO strategy was determined. I have to say to the noble and gallant Lord, in contradiction of his views, that personally I have always believed in the validity of the nuclear deterrent and I do so to this day. I do not say that just because it is government policy. Unfortunately, I can think of many occasions between 1945 and the break-up of the Soviet empire when we might well have had a third world war break out in Western Europe had nuclear weapons not been available to deter the hotheads on either side of the Iron Curtain.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked about procurement. We have a project for future Engineer tanks to replace the existing Chieftain-based armoured vehicle launcher bridge and the armoured vehicle Royal Engineer from 2005. We are currently considering bids for feasibility studies. We have also considered carefully an offer from Vickers Defence Systems to supply future Engineer tanks under a Smart procurement proposal. We hope to reach a decision soon.

The noble Earl asked whether the MoD budget was on target for the next two years. The resources needed to achieve the priorities which we set out in the review will in part be achieved by making savings from rationalisation in support areas, a continuing programme of efficiency improvements and Smart procurement. I have no reason to believe that we shall not meet our targets, though that will be difficult. We have accepted them.

I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, welcomed the review and in particular its comments on sea and air lift. He asked about the role of carriers and whether they would incorporate joint floating command posts. It is impossible to answer that question at this time. The suggestion is certainly not excluded. We are at the earliest stage of considering such questions. In fact, we have not yet reached that stage; we are formulating our studies on the shape and size of carriers. However, the possibility is not ruled out at this stage.

The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, asked what kind of aircraft would be on the carriers. Again, it is far too early to answer that. It might be of help to him and your Lordships to know that we have a menu as regards the fast jets of possibly a navalised Eurofighter, which I understand is a physical possibility; of a conventional take-off and landing joint strike fighter; of an advanced form of Harrier, a STOA VL—short take-of-and-vertical landing aircraft; or of a STOA VL version of the joint strike fighter. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, the joint strike fighter may come in as many as three or four versions. There will also be helicopters and air-borne early warning vehicles.

As regards the question of airborne early warning aircraft, I wish to take up a question which my noble friend Lord Hardy raised with me about UAVs. That gives me a great opportunity to embark on one of my hobbyhorses. It is certainly one of the possibilities for the future carrier that the airborne early warning aircraft may itself be an unmanned aerial vehicle. I am told that the United States is already undertaking experiments with the United States Navy for unmanned helicopters in a supply role. I hope that I am gaining a reputation as a fanatic for developing unmanned systems over the whole range of air power and particularly, but not exclusively, for offensive aircraft when it is a question of delivery of munitions.

Many years ago, we saw the first drones come in as target aircraft. Since then, many countries have introduced unmanned vehicles for tactical reconnaissance and target acquisition roles. It will not be very long before we are seeing unmanned air platforms dispensing munitions. It is quite conceivable that we shall also see them fulfilling, in part at any rate, an air-to-air role. As we move into a scenario in which forces are to be armed with beyond visual range air-to-air missiles, with a range of over 100 miles, the question of whether or not you need a man inside the platform which launches that air-to-air capability is a very moot one.

I have asked a question to which I have yet to receive a thoroughly satisfactory reply. I want to know why, if we can make an unmanned vehicle go prancing around Mars on its own, I cannot have one going around Salisbury Plain on its own. I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to that. As soon as I do, I shall report to your Lordships accordingly.

I am very sorry to see that the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, is not here. He did give me the courtesy of telling me that he could not be here at this stage. I was sorry to hear that he had never been a chief of defence staff. The only way that I believe that he ever will be is when we have a Liberal Democrat government. I am quite sure that he will be high on the list of candidates when the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is the Liberal Democrat Defence Secretary. I hope that that message will be passed on to the noble Earl.

The noble Earl asked me whether we are applying all the media resources available to us in order to represent the forces in a good light. We certainly are. I hope that those of your Lordships who attended the Army presentation in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago were satisfied and gratified by the quality of that presentation and will see that the Army yields to nobody these days in the sophistication with which it advertises its wares.

I was gratified to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and other noble Lords in relation to what we said about zero tolerance for racial discrimination in Her Majesty's Services. Recently, we had the benefit of a splendid visit from General Powell, who gave us many good ideas in that respect, many of which we shall be implementing in due course.

My noble friend Lord Hardy asked me some questions about the state of the European defence industry. That is a matter with which I find myself quite frequently involved, not only in terms of procurement but also in terms of considering the strategies involved. Co-operative procurement is an extremely difficult and tricky task. I find it no easier today than it was when I was responsible for producing the Tornado some 20 years ago. Regrettably, we had to pull out of the Trimilsatcom project recently because we decided that it was not going to come in on time to meet our requirements. We are proceeding with a national solution.

We also have several other projects with our European friends which are offering varying degrees of difficulty; for example, the MR Trigat and the HORIZON Frigate, just to name a couple. As I say, these are extremely difficult matters to handle and they require the greatest concentration both by Ministers and officials in this country and by our allies elsewhere.

Determination of the way in which the defence industry of western Europe is to be restructured is a matter for the boards of the companies involved. They come and talk to us. We merely tell them that we believe that they will have to restructure. They must operate in larger units to survive in the future. That is not only so in areas like aerospace, where it is obvious to everybody that however large a European firm may be, it will still be fairly puny when compared with the resources of Lockheed and Boeing, but also in other activities, particularly in relation to armoured vehicles, where I think I am right in saying that there are something like 16 different manufacturers in Western Europe and only two in the United States. It is clear that we shall not be able to survive if we continue to produce penny packets in individual firms making such equipment.

The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked me—and he was kind enough to give me notice of this—about national defence but more particularly theatre defence against missiles. As I understood him, he was more interested in incoming ballistic missiles rather than incoming Cruise missiles. Our attitude to such an attack on our forces in theatre, were it to come about, would depend on the type of warhead being used against us. If it were an incoming conventional warhead, it would be treated just as one treats incoming artillery fire. The fact that it is launched from a greater range does not have much to do with the matter.

If it were—which is rather unlikely because those things are not very effective in a war-fighting scenario—a warhead which contained a weapon of mass destruction—a chemical or biological agent—then we have means of responding. I am quite sure that anybody who was thinking about launching chemical or biological warheads against British troops would think twice about it when he knew the range of fire power and delivery systems available to Her Majesty's Government.

The noble Lord asked me whether I had any information about a specific site just outside Baghdad. The answer is that I do not. If I did, I am not sure that I could tell the noble Lord in this House because that information would probably be highly classified. However, the fact is that I do not have any such information.

It is very unusual to see the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, over there but she is very welcome on those Benches, I am sure. I quite agree with her that there are not enough people in the services. I only wish that we could spend more money on defence. That has always been my message. However, health Ministers want to spend more on health and education Ministers want to spend more on education. I should like nothing more than to have a larger defence budget so that we could recruit more people and reduce the problem of overstretch.

I was glad to receive a welcome, again from my noble friend Lord Hardy and also elsewhere in this House, for the Government's decision that it is possible for our servicemen and service women to walk on the streets in uniform. That will add greatly to our recruiting strengths over the years ahead. It is also an important ingredient in attracting and retaining more recruits to our educational programmes, which are referred to in the Strategic Defence Review. Welcome was given also to the firmness with which this Government are determined to stamp out racism, bullying or harassment of any sort in the services. That is a message not only to those who might be recruits, but also to their parents. I hope your Lordships will play a part in making it clear that this Government, as did our predecessor, have no intention of tolerating practices of that sort in Her Majesty's Services.

I believe that the most important people to influence are the senior NCOs and the commanding officers of regiments. As General Powell said, we must make it clear that their career prospects will be affected if there are any instances of racial intolerance in their units.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has been extremely informative. However, will he kindly respond to my question in relation to permanent staff instructors? It is particularly important to the background policy of the TA.

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, I did not come armed with figures in regard to permanent staff instructors. I assure the noble Earl that I shall write to him on the subject as soon as I can.

I have probably trespassed on your Lordships' time long enough. This has been one of the most instructive debates that we have had in the short time that I have been in your Lordships' House. I want to respond to one remark of my noble friend Lord Kennet. I do not agree with him that the Ministry of Defence is not able to protect itself against a hacker's attack. I have reason to believe that we have managed to isolate ourselves to such a degree that it would not be possible for any amateur hacker to obtain entry to our central systems in a way that it is apparently possible in the Pentagon.

There are other systems vital to our national defence, not necessarily in the Ministry of Defence, that could be vulnerable. As my noble friend was pointing out, one of the difficulties is identifying an aggressor or even knowing that there has been an aggressor in the microseconds or nanoseconds in which an attack takes place. We must recognise that the physical security of our IT installations is just as important as the electronic security. I say that to indicate that Her Majesty's Government are seized of the types of threat that may face this country in the future.

I do not advance the proposition that we have solutions, let alone defences in place for all the threats that may be coming down the pike towards us. However, we are seized of the fact that we are living in a technologically fast-moving environment and we are determined to see the defence of the country being put on as firm a basis as possible in the light of the new threats. No country has the answer to them. I am sure that this Government, along with our allies—particularly our American allies—will invest considerable resources in this area.

On that point I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, about the importance of keeping up interoperability with our American friends. It will cost us a great deal of money to do so and that is something that we shall have to consider in the years ahead. I thank your Lordships for your attention.

On Question, Motion agreed to.